LIBRARY  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY 

PRINCETON,     N.     J. 


BS  1174  -03813  1889 
Oehler,  Gust   Fr^  1812  1872 
Theology  of  the  Old 
Testament 


>'r.r  ui  < 


r-'^'X^v-; 


#' 


0jM 


THEOLOGY  Wf  ■'■''''!, 


OB* 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 


BY  / 

DR.   GUSTAY  FRIEDRICH  OEHLER, 

LATE   PBOFESSOB  ORDINARIUS  OP  THEOLOGY,  AND  EPHORUS  OP  THE   ETAKOELIOAI. 
THEOLOGICAL   SEJUNABT  IN   TUBINGEN. 


A  REVISION  OF  THE  TRANSLATION  IN  CLARK'S  FOREIGN  THEOLOGICAL 

LIBRARY,  WITH  THE  ADDITIONS  OF  THE  SECOND   GERMAN 

EDITION,  AN  INTRODUCTION  AND  NOTES, 


GEORGE   E.    DAY, 

FB07ESS0B  OF  THE   HEBREW  LANGUAGE  AND   LITERATURE  AND 
BIBLICAL  TECEOLOGT  IN  TALE  COLI.EaB, 


Jfotrrtl^  (^bitmn. 


FUNK  &  WAGNALLS, 


NEW  YORK:  LONDON 

1889 

All  rights  reserved. 


1  SkQ 
18  AND  20  AsTOR  Place.  xooi7  44  Fleet  Street. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1898, 

By  FUXK   &   WAGNALLS, 

la  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington,  D.  C. 


INTRODUCTION 

BY  THE  AMERICAN  EDITOR. 

The  singular  helpfulaess  of  Oehler's  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament  to  ministers 
of  the  Gospel  and  other  biblical  students,  who  have  made  themselves  acquainted 
with  its  contents,  either  in  the  original  or  through  the  Edinburgh  translation,  is 
due  to  its  subject,  the  wide  range  of  thought  which  it  opens,  the  thoroughness 
with  which  the  several  topics  are  examined  and  discussed,  and  the  positive  and 
in  general  satisfactory  results  to  which  the  author  arrives. 

Of  the  subject — the  supernatural  character  and  gradual  progress  of  revelation 
as  exhibited  in  the  Old  Testament — a  subject  now  so  prominent  in  the  face  of  the 
sceptical  denials  of  our  times,  little  need  be  said  beyond  what  is  contained  in  the 
suggestive  and  stimulating  introduction  of  the  author.  No  one  can  read  the 
clear  and  firm  statements  in  §  7  without  being  stirred  by  the  wide  sweep  of 
thought  proposed  to  be  presented.  Embracing  as  it  does  the  whole  field  of 
Israelitish  history  in  its  connection  with  the  founding  of  a  kingdom  of  God 
among  men,  the  kindred  subject  of  the  theocratic  ordinances  and  sacred  antiqui- 
ties of  the  Jews  as  giving  the  limited  and  temporary  form  in  which  that  king- 
dom for  ages  appeared,  and  finally  the  form,  extent,  and  limits  of  the  doctrinal 
truths  presented  in  the  Old  Testament,  it  aims  to  weave  the  whole  into  an  organic 
unity  of  which  the  final  expression  is  Christ.  The  thoroughness  with  which  this 
has  been  done,  and  the  repeated  revisions  to  which  the  author  subjected  his  work 
during  the  thirty  years  in  which  he  lectured  upon  the  theology  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, are  evident  not  only  in  the  present  volume,  but  in  the  forty  articles  con- 
tributed by  him  to  Herzog's  Real-EncyMopadie,  in  which  several  of  the  most  im- 
portant subjects  in  this  department  of  study  are  more  fully  discussed.* 

The  foundation  of  the  whole  superstructure  was  laid  by  the  author  in  a  severe 

*  Of  these  may  be  mentioned  particularly :  Feste  der  alten  Hebraer,  Herz  im  biblischen  Sinn, 
Hoherpriester,  Jehova,  Kanon  des  Alten  Testaments,  K5nige  in  Israel,  Leviten,  Messias,  Opfer- 
cultus  des  A.  T.,  Priesterthum  im  A.  T.,  Prophetenthum  des  A.  T.,  Sabbath,  Sabbath-  und  Jubel- 
jahr,  Stamme  Israels,  Tag  bei  den  Hebraern,  Testament  (Altes  u.  Neues),Volk  Gottes,  Weissagung, 
Elohim,  Heiligkeit  Gottes,  Unsterblichkeit  (Lehre  des  A.  T.),  VersOhnungstag.  These  in  a  very 
compressed  form  will  be  found  translated  in  Dr.  Schaff's  JReligious  Encyclopaidia,  3  vols.  imp.  8vo, 
J883-1884. 


iv  INTIiODDCTIOK. 

process  of  critical  and  cxcgctical  study  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  the  fruits  of 
which  appear  at  every  step.  It  was  once  said  of  him  that  he  seemed  to  be  pre- 
destined to  be  an  expositor  of  the  Old  Testament.  His  decisions  upon  the  mean- 
ing of  its  most  important  and  difficult  passages  will  bear  a  comparison,  there  is 
no  reason  to  doubt,  with  the  Revised  Version  of  that  part  of  the  Bible  soon  to  be 
issued,  as  they  certainly  do  with  the  best  results  of  German  biblical  learning. 
So  numerous  are  these  passages,  which  are  either  critically  explained  or  brought 
into  luminous  connection  with  the  subjects  to  which  they  relate,  that,  taken  along 
with  the  explanations  given  of  their  meaning,  they  supply  to  a  large  degree  the 
place  of  a  critical  commentary. 

The  hiatory  of  the  Israelitish  people,  as  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament,  needs 
now,  more  than  ever,  to  be  made  familiar,  not  only  as  exhibiting  th,e  divine 
guidance  of  a  chosen  race,  with  the  constant  revelation  of  the  character  and  will 
of  God  which  it  involves,  and  also  as  containing  the  setting  in  which  prophecy 
is  put,  and  exhibiting  the  relations  in  which  it  was  uttered,  but  as  furnishing 
the  means  of  judging  of  the  validity  of  many  objections  which  have  been 
recently  urged.  The  best  refutation  of  not  a  few  of  the  strange  and  distorted 
representations  of  sacred  history  now  persistently  made,  is  the  history  itself,  and 
in  presenting  this  in  clear  outline,  to  be  filled  up  by  the  careful  study  of  the 
biblical  narratives,  an  important  help  is  furnished  for  gaining  a  true  idea  of 
divine  revelation. 

The  same  remark  may  be  made  of  the  sacrificial  system  and  sacred  ordinances 
of  the  people  of  Israel,  with  the  additional  consideration  that  the  attempt  of  the 
recent  criticism  to  represent  the  biblical  account  of  them  as  self-contradictory, 
and  to  a  large  extent  of  comparatively  late  origin,  renders  necessary  a  more  par- 
ticular study  of  these  institutions  and  laws  than  has  ordinarily  been  given  to 
them.  Altar,  tabernacle,  sacrifice,  feasts,  priests,  and  I^evites  have  now  again 
become  subjects  of  critical  inquiry  and  investigation  which  cannot  safely  be  neg- 
lected. Tiie  principal  diflicultics  urged  by  the  scepticism  of  De  Wette  and  the 
reconstruction  of  biblical  history  propose<lby  the  Hegelian  speculations  of  Vatke, 
will  be  found  discussed  and  placed  in  their  true  light  by  Dr.  Oehler.*  In  their 
more  recent  form,  as  presented  by  the  Wellhauscn  school,  and  repeated  by  Prof. 
Robertson  Smith,  tliey  are  stated  and  often  sharply  refuted  in  the  additional  notes 
in  the  second  German  edition,  a  translation  of  which  is  given  in  the  present  vol- 
ume. If  these  notes  do  not  cover  the  whole  ground,  which  in  the  nature  of  the 
case  they  cannot  imdertake  to  do  in  a  Bil)lical  Theology,  they  indicate  some  of  the 
chief  points  in  the  present  critical  controversy,  and  will  certainly  be  of  service  in 

*  An  approximation  to  the  propor  pronunciation  of  this  name  will  be  made,  by  those  not  familiar 
^Ith  German,  by  giving  to  the  flri<t  Hyllablc  of  Oehler  the  sound  ol  <y  in  "  they." 


INTKODUCTION".  T 

the  reading  of  the  new  literature  which  is  sure  to  appear,  devoted  exclusively  to 
these  discussions. 

The  crowning  part  of  this  wide  range  of  subjects  is  the  clear  exhibition  of  the 
revelation  of  Himself,  made  by  the  Most  High,  and  the  Divine  thoughts  by  which 
men  were  educated  for  the  coming  of  Christ  and  the  truths  which  He  came  to 
teach.  In  the  careful  tracing  of  these  thoughts,  as  revealed  in  facts  and  by  words 
in  the  Old  Testament,  the  author,  avoiding  both  the  mystical  tendency  of  Von 
Meyer  and  Stier  and  the  mistake  of  Hengstenberg  and  others,  in  endeavoring  to 
put  more  of  completed  Christian  doctrine  into  the  Old  Testament  than  can  be 
done  without  violence,  has  presented  the  theology  of  the  older  part  of  the  Bible 
in  a  form  which  at  one  and  the  same  time  meets  the  demands  of  theological 
science  and  the  practical  wants  of  the  Christian  believer,  and  has  produced  a  work 
which  stands,  as  Dr.  Schaff  has  rightly  said  {Religious  Encyclopdedia,  ii.,  p.  1685), 
at  the  head  of  this  department  of  biblical  study.  It  was,  therefore,  only  a  de- 
served tribute  to  its  merit  that  in  the  Examinatorium*  or  series  of  examination 
questions  on  the  best  manuals  in  the  different  branches  of  theology,  which  has 
been  recently  prepared  and  published  for  the  use  of  students  in  the  German  uni- 
versities, the  Old  Testament  Theology  of  Oehler  was  selected  to  accomjiany  the 
treatises  of  Neander,  Hagenbach,  Winer,  Bleek,  and  others  in  their  own  special 
departments.  It  should  also  be  mentioned  that  the  publication  of  the  original  in 
Germany  in  1873-4  was  immediately  followed  by  a  translation  into  English  by  E. 
D.  Smith  and  S.  Taylor  in  1874-5,  into  French  by  De  Kougemont  in  1876,  and 
into  Dutch  by  Dr.  Hartog,  of  Utrecht,  in  1879.  , 

With  these  facts  in  view,  and  in  the  hope  of  rendering  this  work,  which  has 
been  used  for  two  or  three  years  in  his  class-room  with  uniformly  gratifying 
results,  more  accessible  and  helpful  to  biblical  students,  the  American  editor  ac- 
cepted the  invitation  of  the  publishers  to  undertake  a  general  revision  of  the 
English  translation  in  Clark's  Foreign  Theological  Library  with  the  addition  of 
notes  on  points  of  special  difficulty  or  importance.  Some  progress  in  this  direc- 
tion had  been  made,  when  the  appearance  of  a  new  edition  of  the  original  in  Ger- 
many, by  Dr.  Theodore  Oehler,  a  younger  son  of  the  author,  dictated  the  pro- 
priety of  bringing  this  edition  into  substantial  conformity  with  it.  In  this  proc- 
ess the  Edinburgh  translation  of  the  text  or  body  of  the  work,  containing  the 
lectures  of  Dr.  Oehler  as  originally  delivered  (which  has  not  been  materially 
changed  in  the  recent  German  edition,  although  some  additions  have  been  made), 
and  of  such  parts  of  the  notes  as  have  been  retained,  has  been  subjected  to  a 
thorough  revision,  requiring  numerous  changes,  in  which  errors  incidental  to  a 

*  Examinatorium  iiber  die  theologischen  Disciplinen  nack  den  gangbarsten  Lehrbuchern.     Leipz., 
1871-1880. 


Vi  INTBODUCTIOK. 

first  translation  liavc  been  corrected  and  passages  obscurely  rendered  have  been 
made  more  intelligible.  In  these  changes,  in  which  it  has  been  sometimes  neces- 
Bary  to  resort  to  paraphrase,  or  at  least  to  abandon  a  strictly  verbal  rendering,  the 
excellent  Dutch  translation  of  Dr.  Ilartog  has  been  of  appreciable  service.  The 
large  amount  of  new  matter  in  the  recent  German  edition  (generally  indicated  by 
brackets)  referring  to  current  discussions  on  questions  of  biblical  criticism,  philol- 
ogy, exegesis,  and  the  history  of  religions,  with  references  to  the  most  recent  liter- 
ature, rendered  necessary  in  that  edition  the  omission  of  a  number  of  notes  of 
subordinate  importance,  which  accordingly  are  for  the  most  part  omitted  also  in 
this  translation.  For  the  same  reason  it  became  necessary  for  the  American  edi- 
tor, in  the  additional  notes  which  seemed  to  be  called  for,  to  restrict  himself  to  the 
utmost  brevity,  and  even  in  some  cases  not  to  indicate  points  on  which  it  appears 
to  him  the  positions  or  conclusions  of  the  author  are  not  sufficiently  guarded  or 
are  not  supported  by  evidence. 

The  other  additions  and  changes  made  in  order  to  give  an  increased  value  to  this 
edition  are  (1)  the  greatly  enlarged  and  complete  index  of  texts,  (2)  the  references 
to  the  pages  of  the  English  translations  of  German  works  rather  than  to  the  orig- 
inal, and  (3)  the  restoration  of  italics  in  the  words  and  sentences  designed  to  be 
made  prominent  in  the  original  (also  in  a  few  other  places),  which  were  neglected 
to  a  great  extent  in  the  Edinburgh  edition.  The  Hebrew  words  in  the  text 
and  notes,  while  likely  to  be  welcomed  by  the  increasing  number  of  those  en- 
gaged in  the  work  of  the  ministry  who  feel  the  importance  of  studying  the  Old 
Testament  in  the  original,  will  occasion  no  special  difficulty  to  others,  as  the 
translation  immediately  follows,  or  the  meaning  can  be  easily  gathered  from  the 
connection. 

The  verification  of  the  numerous  references  to  the  Bible  has  been  entirely  com- 
mitted to  the  Rev.  J.  A.  Spencer,  D.D.,  of  New  York,  who  has  also  revised  and 
corrected  the  full  index  of  texts,  which  was  originally  prepared  and  thrown  into 
a  printed  form  by  the  class  of  1882  in  the  Yale  Divinity  School  for  their  own 
use,  and  has  adapted  the  enlarged  index  of  sul)jects  to  the  paging  of  the  present 
edition.  My  thanks  are  also  due  to  Mr,  Arthur  D.  Bissell,  of  the  Graduate  Class 
in  this  Seminary,  for  aid  in  making  the  pages  referred  to  in  German  books  cor- 
respond to  the  English  or  American  translations  where  such  exist. 

G.  E.  D. 

Divinity  Scuooi.  of  Yai,e  Collkge, 

N*w  Uavkn,  Conn.,  Nov.  27,  1883. 


TITLES  OF  EECENT   WORKS  MOST  FREQUENTLY  CITED 
OR  REFERRED   TO   IN   THIS   EDITION. 

Batjdissin,  W.  W.  "Studien  zur  Semitischen  Religionsgeschichte. "  Heft.  II. 
Leipz.,  1876-79. 

BoHL,  E.  ' '  Christologie  des  Alten  Testamentes,  oder  Auslegung  der  wichtigsten 
Messianischen  Weissagungen. "     Wien,  1882. 

Bredenkamp,  C.  J.  "  Gesetz  und  Propheten.  Ein  Beitrag  zur  alttestamentl. 
Kritik."     Erlangen,  1881. 

DiLLMANN,  A.     "  Die  Biicher  Exodus  und  Leviticus."     Leipz.,  1880. 

DuHM,  B,     "Die  Theologie  der  Propheten."     Bonn,  1875. 

EwALD,  H.  "Lehre  der  Bibel  von  Gott  oder  Theologie  des  Alten  und  Neuen 
Bundes."     4  Bde.     Leipz.,  1871-1876. 

Green,  W.  H.     "Moses  and  the  Prophets."     N.  Y.,  1883. 

Herzoq.  "  Real-Encyklopadie  filr  Protestantische  Theologie  und  Kirche."  Leipz. 
22  vols.  1854-1866.  2d  ed.,  10  vols,  (not  yet  completed),  1877-1882. 
Abridged  and  translated  with  additions  under  the  supervision  of  Dr.  SchaS. 
New  York.     3  vols.,  imp.  8vo.     1882-1884. 

HiTZiG,  F.  "Vorlesungen  liber  biblische  Theologie  und  Messianische  Weis- 
sagungen."    Karlsruhe,  1880. 

KoNiG,  F.  E.  "Der  OffenbarungsbegriflE  des  Alten  Testamentes."  3  Bde. 
Leipz.,  1882. 

KoHLER,  A.  "Biblische  Geschichte  des  Alten  Testamentes,"  2  Bde.  Erlangen, 
1877-1882. 

KuENEN,  A.  "De  profeten  en  de  profetie  in  der  Israel."  Leiden,  1875. — "The 
Prophets  and  Prophecy  in  Israel,"  translated  from  the  Dutch.    London,  1877. 

Orelli  von,  C.  "Die  alttestamentliche  Weissagung  von  der  Vollendung  des 
Gottesreiches."     Wien,  1882. 

Reuss,  E.  "Die  Geschichte  der  heiligen  Schriften  des  Alten  Testaments." 
2  Halfte.     Braunschweig,  1881-82. 

Riehm,  E.  "Die  Messianische  Weissagung. "  Gotha,  1875.— "Messianic  Prophe- 
cy."    Edinb.,  1875. 

"  Handworterbuch  des  biblischen  Altertums."  Leipz.,  1875-83.  (Com- 
pleted as  far  as  16.  Lief.,  pp.  1-1536, 

ScHRADEB,  E.  "Die  Keilinschrif ten  und  das  Alte  Testament."  2.  Aufl.  Gies- 
sen,  1883. 

SCHULTZ,  F.  W.     "Alttestamentliche  Theologie."    3.  Aufl,    Frankf.  a.  M.,  1878. 

Smith,  R,  Payne.  "  Prophecy  a  Preparation  for  Christ."  (Bampton  Lecture.) 
2d  ed.     Lend,  and  N,  Y,,  1871. 


Till  TITLES   OF    WORKS    REFERRED   TO. 

Smith,  W.  Robertson.     "The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church."     Lond. 

and  N.  Y.,  1881. 

"The  Prophets  of  Israel"     Lond.  and  N.  Y.,  1882. 

Wellhausen,  J.    "Ausgabe  der  Geschichte  Israels."    Baud  I.,  1878.    2d  edition, 

under  the  title  "  Prolegomena  zur  Geschichte  Israel."     Berlin,  1883. 
ZocKLER.     "  Handbuch  der  theologischen  Wissenschaften."    4Halbbande.  1882- 

83.     (Not  completed.     To  be  translated  for  Clark's  Foreign  Theol.  Library.) 

To  these  may  be  added  : 

Brigos,  C.  a.  "Biblical  Study,  its  Principles,  Methods,  and  History,  together 
•with  a  Catalogue  of  Books  of  Reference."     N.  Y.,  1883. 

BoUL,  E.  "  Zum  Gesetz  und  zum  Zeugniss.  Eine  Abwehr  wider  die  kritische 
Bchriftforschung  im  Alten  Testament,"  1883.  The  latter  two  have  ap- 
peared as  the  last  sheets  of  this  work  were  passing  through  the  press. 


CONTENTS. 


PAOB 

INTKODUCTION,  by  the  American  Editor iii 

INTEODUCTOEY  LECTUEE,  by  the  Author 1 

PEELIMINAEY  STATEMENTS. 
§  1.  Summary. 5 

I.  Definition  and  Limits  of  Old  Testament  Theology. 

§  2.  Definition  of  Old  Testament  theology.     It  embraces  the  whole  field  of 

revelation  in  the  Old  Testament 5 

§  3.  Eelation  of  Old  Testament  theology  to  other  Old  Testament  branches. 
§  4.  Sources  of  Old  Testament  theology 10 

II.  FuLLEB  Statement  of  the  Scientific  Standpoint  of  Old  Testament  Theology. 

§  5.  The  view  of  the  Old  Testament  religion  proper  to  Christian  theology.  13 

§  6.  The  Biblical  idea  of  revelation.     General  and  special  revelation 14 

§  7.  Historical  character  and  gradual  progress  of  revelation.  Its  rela- 
tion to  the  whole  of  man's  life.     Its  supernatural  character 17 

§  8.  The  Old  and  the  New  Testament  in  their  relation  to  heathenism  and 

to  each  other 18 

in.    HiSTOKT  OF  THE  CULTIVATION  OF  OlD    TESTAMENT  ThEOLOGY    IN    THE  ChKISTIAN 

Chukch. 

§  9.  Theological  view  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  Early  Church  and  in 

the  Middle  Ages 22 

§  10.  Theological  view  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  age  of  the  Eeforma- 

tion 24 

§  11.  Theological  conception  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  older  Protes- 
tant theology' 27 

§  12.  Conception  and  treatment  of  the  Old  Testament  from  the  end  of  the 

17th  to  the  end  of  the  18th  century 30 

§  13.  Else  of  a  Biblical  theology  distinct  from  a  dogmatic  treatment 
of  the  Old  Testament  by  Eationalism,  and  by  the  newer  history  and 
philosophy  of  religion 32 

§  14a.  Theological  view  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  earlier  Supernatural- 
ism,  and  in  the  most  recent  literature 3G 

§  14?>.  Continuation  :  The  most  recent  literature 39 


X  CONTENTS. 

IV.  Method  of  Bibucal,  Theoloox.     Division  of  Old  Testament  Theologt. 

PAQE 

§  15.  Characteristics  of  the  historico-genetic  method 41 

§  16.  Division  of  Old  Testament  Theology  stated  and  defended 43 


PART   I.     MOSAISM. 

FiEST  Section.  THE  HISTORY  OF  REVELATION  FROM  THE  CREATION, 
TO  THE  SETTLEMENT  OF  THE  COVENANT  PEOPLE  IN  THE 
HOLY  LAND. 

§  17.  Division  of  this  history 49 

I.  The  PiiiMEVAii  Age. 

§  18.  The  account  of  the  creation 50 

§  19.  The  origin  of  evil 52 

§  20.  The  first  offering.     Cainites  and  Sethites.     Tradition  of  the  Flood.     54 

n.  The  Second  Age  of  the  Wokld. 

§  21.  Covenant  with  the  world.     Noah's  saying.     Division  of  mankind...     56 
§  22.  The  foundation  of  a  people  of  God 58 

in.  The  Time  of  the  Patbtarchs. 

§  23.  Abraham 60 

§  24.  Isaac  and  Jacob 64 

§  25.  The  twelve  jDatriarchs 65 

rV.  The  Time  of  Moses  and  Joshua. 

1.  The  deliverance  of  Israel  from  Egyptian  bondage. 

§  26.  Condition  of  the  people  of  Israel  in  Egypt 68 

§  27.  The  deliverance  from  Egypt 70 

2.  Tlie  institution  of  the  covenant  of  the  law  and  the  march  through  the  wilderness. 
§  28.  Educational  aim  of  the  march  through  the  wilderness.     The  Cove- 
nant of  the  Law  established 72 

§  29.  The  first  breach  of  the  covenant.     Order  of  the  camp.     Departure 

from  Sinai.     Sentence  on  the  people 7i 

§  30.  The   wandering   during    thirty-seven    years  in   the  wilderness,  and 

events  up  to  the  occupation  of  the  land  on  the  east  side  of  the  Jordan.     76 

§  31.  Deuteronomy.  Death  of  Moses.  His  position  among  the  organs  of 
revelation 78 

3.  77te  settlement  of  Israel  in  the  Holy  Land. 

§  32.  Occupation  of  Canaan.     Extermination  of  the  Canaanites 81 

§  33.  Division  of  the  land.     Character  of  the  Promised  Land.     Israel  at 

the  close  of  this  period 83 

Sboond   Section.     THE   DOCTRINES   AND   ORDINANCES   OF   MOSAISM. 

§  34.  Survey 88 

First  Division.     The  DocrnrNE  of  God  and   His  Relation  to  the  World. 


doHlEiT'rS.  xi 

First  Chaptee.      The  Mosaic  Idea  of  Ood. 

FAOB 

§  35.  Survey 88 

I.  The  most  Geneeax,  Names  of  the  Divine  Being,  El,  Eloah,  Elohim,  El- 

Elton. 
§  36 87 

II.  El-Shaddai. 

§  37.... 90 

III.  The  Name  Jehovah. 

§  38.  Pronunciation  and  grammatical  explanation  of  the  name 92 

§  39.  Signification  of  the  name 95 

§  40.  Age  and  origin  of  the  name  Jehovah 96 

§  41.  Comparison  of  the  name  Jehovah  with  Elohim  and  El 98 

§  42.  Attributes  or  names  of  God  which  are  derived  immediately  from  the 

idea  of  Jehovah 100 

§  43.  The  unity  of  God 102 

IV.  God  as  the  Holt  One. 

§  44.  Formal  definition  of  the  idea 105 

§  45.  Fuller  definition  of  the  idea 109 

§  46.  Characteristics  connected  with  the  Divine  holiness  :  Impossibility  of 

picturing  God,  Omnipresence,  Spirituality Ill 

§  47.  The  Divine  righteousness,  faithfulness,  and  truth 112 

§  48.  The  jealous  God 113 

Second  Chapter.      TJie  Eelaiion  of  God  to  the  World. 
§  49.  General  survey  .> 116 

Mrst  Doctrine.     On  the  Creation  and  Preservation  of  the  World. 

I.  On  the  Ceeation. 

§  50.  Creation  by  the  Word  ^.    116 

§  51.  The  Divine  Spirit  in  the  Creation 118 

II.  On  the  Peeseevation  of  the  Woeld. 

§  52 119 

Second  Doctrine.     The  Divine  Aim  of  the  World.     Divine  Providence. 

§  53.  The  design  of  Creation,  and  its  realization  through  Providence 121 

§  54.  Belation  of  the  Divine  causality  to  moral  and  physical  evil 122 

Third  Doctrine.     Of  Eevelation. 

§  55.  Introductory  remark  and  general  view 124 

I.  The  Eevelation  of  the  Divine  Being. 

§56.  The  Divine  name 124 

§  57.  The  Divine  countenance,  and  the  Divine  glory 127 

n.  The  Foems  of  Eevelation. 

§58.  The  Divine  voice 128 


XI 1  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

1^  59.  The  tloctrine  of  the  Angel  of  the  Lord,  of  the  Countenance,  of  the 

Covenant.     The  exegetical  state  of  the  case 129 

§  60.  Continuation.     The  different  views 131 

§  61.  Other  points  of  the    Mosaic   Angelologj' 134 

§  62.  The  Shekhina 137 

§  C3.  The   doctrine  of   miracle.     Its  appearance  in   history   and   various 

names 138 

§  64.  Continuation.     More  exact  definition  of  miracle 139 

§  65.  On  the  Spirit  of  God 141 

§  66.  The  psychical  states  of  the  organs  of  revelation 142 

Second  Division.     The  Doctkine  of  Man. 

§  67.   General    view 145 

First  Chapter.      The  nature  of  man  in  its  main  unchangeahle  features. 
I.  The  Idea  of  Man. 

§68 145 

n.  Man  rs  Ekt.ation  to  Sex  and  Race, 

§69 '.147 

III.  The  Constituent  Parts  of  Man. 

§  70.  Body,  soul,  spirit 149 

§  71.  The  heart,  and  its  relation  to  the  soul 152 

Second  Chapter.      'Hie  doctrine  of  man  in  refei-ence  to  the  contradictory 
element's  which  entered  by  sin  into  its  development. 

I.  The  PREvnTivE  State  of  Man. 

§72 156 

II.  Of  Sin. 

1.  77(6  orifjin  of  siyi. 

§  73.  The  formal  principle  of  sin ....    158 

§  74.  The  material  principle  of  sin.     The  Old  Testament  names  of  sin 159 

2.  The  state  of  .sin. 

§  75.  Sin  as  an  inclination.     Transmission  of  sin IGi 

§  76.  Antagonism  of   the   good   and  the   evil    in   man.     Degrees   of  sin. 

Possibility  of  a  relative  righteousness 164 

in.  On  Death  and  the  State  aftijb  Death. 

§  77.  The  connection  between  sin  and  death 166 

§  78-79.  The  doctrine  of  Mosaism  on  the  condition  after  death 169 

TJiird  Division.     The  Covenant  of  God  with  Israei.  and  the  Theocracy. 
First  Ciiaptku.      The  naiurc  (f  the  Covenant 

§  80   I'rcliiuiuary  remarks  and  general  survey I75 

Rrst  Doctrine.     The  Divine  Election. 

§  81 .  Israel's  election  as  the  full  act  of  God's  love 176 

§  82.  Forms  in  which  the  election  of  the  people  is  expressed 178 


CONTENTS.  Xlli 

Second  Bodrine.     Man's  Obligation. 

PAGE 

§  83.  The  servant  of  Jehovah 181 

§  84.  The  Law 182 

§  85-86.  The  Decalogue.     Its  division 184 

§  87.  Circumcision.     Its  historical  origin 191 

§  88.  Keligious  import  of  circumcision.     The  giving  of  a  name 193 

Third  Doctrine.     Divine  Eetribtition. 

§  89.  Blessing  and  curse 195 

§  90.  Solution  of  the  apparent  contradiction  between  the  Divine  election 

and  the  Mosaic  doctrine  of  retribution.     Attacks  on  the  latter 197 

Second  Chapter.      The  Theocracy. 

§  91.  The  idea  of  the  Divine  Kingship 199 

First  Doctrine.     The  Theocratic  Organism,  and  the  Ordinances  of  Law  and  Jus- 
tice connected  therewith. 

I.  Theockatic  Oeganization  of  the  People. 

§92.  The  division  into  tribes.     Israel's  representation  before  Jehovah. ., .  200 

1.  The  Leviies. 

§  93.  The   mode   and   meaning   of    the   representation   of   Israel  by   the 

Levites   203 

§  94.  Official  functions,  dedication,  and  social  position  of  the  Levites 206 

2.  The  priesthood. 

§95 209 

3.  The  high  priest. 

§96 214 

n.  The  Theocratic  Authority. 

1.  The  legislative  authority. 

§  97 217 

2.  The  judicial  power. 

§98.  The  principle  and  organization  of  the  administration  of  justice...,  219 
§  99.  The  course  of  justice  and  punishment 221 

3.  The  executive  power. 

§  100 223 

III.  The  Organization  of  the  Famtlx,  and  the  Legaxi  Provisions  connected 
therewith. 
§  101.  The  subdivisions  of  the  tribes.     The  principles    and    division    of 

Mosaic  family  law 225 

1.  Ttie  law  of  marriage. 

§  102.  The  contracting    of  marriage  :  the.  dependent  position  of  the  wife 

and  the  forms  of  the  marriage  contract 228 

§  103.  Bars  to  marriage 228 

§  104.  The  dissolution  of  marriage 230 

2.  The  relation  of  parents  to  children. 

§105 232 


Xiv  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

3.  The  law  of  inheritance,  and  provisions  for  (he  permanence  of  families  and  their 

inheritance. 
§  106.  The  law  of  inheritance.    Laws  concerning  heiresses  and  the  levirato 

marriage 234 

§  107.  Provisions  concerning  the  preservation  of  the  family  inheritance . .  235 
§  108.  The  avenging  of  blood 238 

4.  The  rights  of  servants  in  the  house 239 

§  109.  Bondage  in  the  time  of  the  patriarchs.     The  principles  of  the  rights 

of  bondmen 239 

§  110.  The  regulations  concerning  Hebrew  servants 240 

§  111.  The  position  of  servants  not  Israelites 244 

Second  Doctrine.    The  Mosaic  Public  Worship. 

§  112.  General  introductory  remarks.     Essential  character  of  this  worship.  246 

§  113.  The  place  of  the  word  in  public  worship 248 

Appendix  ;    The   oath 248 

I.  The  Place  of  Worship. 

§  114.  The  requisites  for  a  place  of  worship 250 

§  115.  The  arrangement  of  the  Mosaic  sanctuary 252 

§  116.  Meaning  of  the  sanctuary.     Its  three  divisions 254 

§  117.  Sacred  vessels  in  the  court  and  in  the  sanctuary 255 

§  118.  The  ark  of  the  covenant,  with  the  Kapporeth  and  the  tables  of  the 

law 257 

§  119.  The  Cherubim 258 

n.  The  Actions  of  the  Mosaic  Worship. 

§  120.  Introductory  remarks.     On  the  idea  of  offerings  in  general 261 

§  121.  Pre-Mosaic   sacrifice  and  the  Mosaic  covenant.     Sacrifice    as  the 

basis  of  the  Mosaic  sacrificial  worship 263 

1.  The  material  of  the  offerings. 

§  122.  Bloody  and  bloodless  offerings 267^ 

§  123.  The  material  of  animal  offerings 268 

§  124.  The  ingredients  of  the  vpgetablo  offerings.     Salt  in  the  offerings. . .  270 

§  125.  The  principle  on  which  the  material  of  offerings  was  fixed 272 

2.  The  ritual  of  saa'ifice. 

§  126.  The  ritual  of  animal  sacrifice.     Presentation  at  the  altar  ;  laying 

on  of  hands  ;  slaughter 274 

§  127.  The  use  made  of  the  shed  blood 276 

§  128.  The  burning  of  the-offering , 281 

§  129.  Ritual  of  the  food-offering 283 

5.  On  the  various  kinds  of  offerings  icith  reference  to  their  purpose. 

§  130.  Various  kinds  of  offerings  as  thus  distinguished . .    284 

(a)  The  burnt-offering. 

§  131 285 

(h)  The  peace-offering. 

§  132.  Its  name,  notion,  and  division 287 

i)  133.   The  ritual  of  the  poaceroffering 289 


■      CONTENTS.  XV 

PAGE 

§  134.  Of  VOWS 292 

§  135.  Nazaritism 294 

Appendix.     The  theocratic  taxes. 
§  136 298 

(c)  ITie  atoning  sacrifices. 

§  137.  The  difEerence  between  the  trespass-offering  and  the  sin-offering 

with  respect  to  the  end  in  view , 300 

§  138.  The  ritual  and  import  of  the  trespass  and  the  sin  offerings.     The 

trespass-offering 304 

§  139.  The  ritual  of  the  sin-offering 305 

§  140.  The  ritual  of  the  Day  of  Atonement 309 

§  141.  Signification  of  the  ritual  and  antiquity  of  the  Day  of  Atonement. .  315 
Appendix.     Purifications. 

§  142.  The  Levitical  purifications 319 

§  143.  Acts  of  purifications  for  removing  the  suspicion  of  guilt 320 

m.  The  Sacked  Seasons. 

1.  The  Sacred  Seasons  in  general. 

§  144.  Survey  of  the  sacred  seasons  and  their  designations 323 

§  145.  Reasons  which  determine  the  times  of  the  feasts 324 

§  146.  The  celebration  of  the  holy  days 326 

2.  The  Sabbatical  Seasons. 
(rt)   The  weekly  Sabbath. 

§  147.  Antiquity  and  origin  of  the  Sabbath 328 

§  148.  The  idea  of  the  Sabbath 332 

§  149.  The  celebration  of  the  Sabbath 334 

(b)  The  new  moon  Sabbath. 

§  150 336 

(c)  The  Sabbatical  year  and  the  year  of  Jubilee. 

§  151.  Legal  enactments 337 

§  152.  Import  and  practicability  of  the  institution  of  the  Sabbatical  year 

and  the  year  of  Jubilee ''..... 342 

3.  The  three  pilgrimage  feasts, 
(a)  The  Passover. 

§  153.  Enactments  concerning  the  solemnity 345 

§  154.  Significance  of  the  feast  of  the  passover,  and  questions  connected 

with  it. 348 

(&)  The  feast  of  weeks  (Pentecost). 

§  155 350 

(c)  The  feast  of  Tabernacles. 

&  156 351 


XVI  CONTENTS. 


PART  II.-PROPIIETISM. 

FiEST  Section.  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  THEOCRACY  FROM  THE 
DEATH  OF  JOSHUA  TO  THE  CLOSE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 
REVELATION. 

First  Division.     The  Times  of  the  Judges. 

J.  The  Disintegration  of  the  Theocract  till  the  Times  of  Samuel. 

PAGE 

§  157.  Course  of  events.     Import  of  the  office  of  Judge 353 

§  158.  Religious  condition.     Decline  of  the  theocratic  institutions 355 

§  159.  Religious  syncretism   of   this  period 359 

n.  Restoration  of  the  Theocratic  Unity  by  Samuel.    Growth  of  Prophetism. 
Foundation  of  the  Monarchy. 

§  160.  The  Philistine  oppression.     Changes  effected  by  Samuel 361 

§  161.  Nature,  importance,  and  first  beginnings  of  the  prophetic  office. . . .   362 
§  162.  The  so-called   schools  of   the  Prophets.      The  projihetic  office   of 

watchman . .  363 

§  163.  Thefoundationof  the  Israelitish  Kingdom  :  consecration  of  the  king.  368 

Seccmd  Division.     Period  of  the  Undivided  Kingdom. 

I.  Saul. 

§164 370 

II.  David. 

§  165.  Historj'  of  his  reign.     His  theocratic  position  and  personal  religious 

development 371 

§  166.  The  form  of  worship  under  David 376 

m.  Solomon. 

§  167.  The  building  of  the  temple 378 

§  168.  Significance  and  dedication  of  the  temple 380 

§  169.  Hebrew  proverbial  poetry.     The   Hhakhamim 382 

§  170.  Solomon's  external  organizations.     The  dark  sides    of   his   reign. 

Division  of  the  Kingdom 384 

Tliird  Division.     The  Kingdom  of  the  Ten  Tribes. 
§  171.  Preliminary  remarks. 

First  Period.     From  Jerohonm  I.   to  the  overthrow  of  the  dynasty  of  Omri. 

§  172.  Jeroboam  I.  to  Omri 387 

§  173.  The  dynasty  of  Omri 390 

§  174.  Schools  of  the  Prophets  and  characteristics  of  the  prophetism  of 

the  period.     The  Rechabites 392 

Second  Period.     Erom  Jehu  to  the  overthroio  of  the  kingdcm,  of  the  ten  tribes. 

§  175.  The  dynasty  of  Jehu 395 

§  176.  From  Zachariah  to  the  carrying  away  of  the  ten  tribes 396 

§  177.  Origin  of  the  Samaritans ..,.., , . , 399 


COKTENTS.  XTii 

Fourth  Division.    The  Kingdom  of  Judah. 

§  178.  Preliminary  remarks  and  survey , 400 

FiEST  Period.    From  Rehoboam  to  Ahaz. 

§  179.  Eehoboam  to  Jehoshaphat 403 

§  180.  Jehoram  to  Jotham 404 

Second  Pebiod.     FVom  Ahaz  to  Josiah. 

§  181.  Ahaz  and  Hezekiah 408 

§  182.  Manasseh  and  Amon „ 412 

Thibd  Period.     From  Josiah  to  the  overthrow  of  the  state. 

§  183.  Josiah 414 

§  184.  Profane  history  of  this  period.     Death  of  Josiah.    Jehoahaz 416 

§  185.  Jehoiakim  and  Jehoiachin 417 

§  186.  Zedekiah.     Fall  of  the  State  and  of  Jerusalem 419 

§  187.  Gedeliah  and  the  remnant  of  the  people 421 

Fifth  Division.     Histoet  of  the  Jewish  Nation  from  the  Babylonian  CAPnvrry 
TO  THE  Cessation  of  Peophect. 

§  188.  Condition  of  the   people  and  agency  of  the  Prophets  during  the 

Captivity 422 

§  189.  Deliverance  and  return  of  Jews  from  Babylon.     Commencement  of 

the  rebuilding  of  the  temple 424 

§  190.  The  period  from  Cyrus  to  Darius  Hystaspis 427 

§  191.  The  Jews  under  Xerxes.     Beginning  of  Ezra's  administration 428 

§  192.  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.     The  close  of  prophecy 431 

§  193.  The  beginning  of  Sopherism.     Public  worship  at  the  close  of  this 
period 434 

Second  Section.     THE   THEOLOGY  OF  PROPHETISM. 

§  194.  Summary , 437 

First  Division.     The  Docteine  of  the  Loed  of  Hosts  and  of  Angels. 

§  195.  Form  and  occurrence  of  this  name  of  God.     Partial  views  concern- 
ing its  original  meaning 437 

§  196.  The  host  of  heaven.     The  heavenly  bodies 439 

§  197.  The  host  of  the  heavenly  spirits 441 

§  198.  Eesult  with  respect  to  the  name  Jehovah  Sabaoth 443 

§  199.  Angels  of  higher  order  and  special  office 444 

§  200.  The  doctrine  of  Satan 448 

Second  Division.     Man's  Eeligiotts  and  Moeal  Eelation  to  God. 

I.  Distinction  between  the  Ceeemonial  and  the  MoraIi  Law. 

§  201 451 

n.  The  Euinotjs  Natuee  of  Sin.     The  Need  of  a  new  Dispensation  of  Grace. 

§  202 455 


iviu  CONTENTS. 

TIT    JuEnncATioN  by  Faith. 

§  203.  The  Old  Testament  form  of  faith 459 

§  204.  The  Old  Testament  experience  of  salvation 461 

Third  Division.     Of  Peophect. 

First  Subdivision.     The  prophetic  consciousness. 

§  205.  Negative  propositions 464 

§  206.  Positive  propositions 465 

§  207.  Psychological  definition  of  the  prophetic  state  in  ancient  times 468 

§  208.  Phase  of  this  siabject  under  Protestant  theology 471 

§  209.  Continuity  and   elevation   of  the  individual  life  in  the  prophetic 

state  473 

§  210.  Prophecy  an  inward  intuition 474 

§  211.  The  prophetic  state  illustrated  by  analogies  :  Dreams.     Communion 

with  God  in  prayer 478 

§  212.  The  conceptions  of  genius  and  the  natural  powers  of  divination 481 

Second  Subdivision.     Of  prophecy. 

§  213.  Its  office  in  general 484 

§  214.  The  prediction  of  particular  events  an  essential  element  of  prophecy.  486 
§  215-216.  The  peculiarities  of  Old  Testament  prophecy 488 

Fourth  Division.     Of  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

§  217.  Survey 494 

Urst  Subdivision.     TJie  purpose  of  God's  Kingdom;  the  contradiction  thereto 
presented  by  the  present ;  the  abolition  of  this  contradiction  by  judgment. 

L  The  Design  of  God's  Kingdom, 

§  218 495 

II.  The  Relation  of  the  Present  to  the  Puepose  of  the  Divine  Kingdom. 

§  219 497 

m.  The  Judgment. 

§  220.  The  day  of  the  Lord.     The  judgment  upon  the  Covenant  people. ..  499 
§  221.  The  judgment  upon  the  heathen  nations ,   501 

Second  Subdivision.     The  future  Redemption. 
I.  The   Deuverance  and  Restoration  of  the  Covenant  People. 

§  222.  The  restoration  of  Israel  a  necessary  event 505 

§  223.  The  remnant  of  Jacob.     The  new  covenant  an  everlasting  one.    The 

forgiveness  of  sins.     The  outpouring  of  the  Spirit 506 

§  224.  Other  features  of  the  times  of  redemption 509 

§225,226.  Death  destroyed ]\[  511 

n.  The  Admission  of  the  Heathen  into  the  Kingdom  op  God. 

§  227.  The  extension  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  in  the  times  of  redemption  516 
§  228.  The  conditions  under  which  the  admission  of  the  heathen  into  the 

kingdom  of  God  is  to  take  place 51g 


CONTENTS.  Xix 

ni.  The  Messiah. 

PAGE 

§  229.  Twofold   view   of   the  consummation  of  redemption.     The   word 

Messiah.     The  roots  of  the  Messianic  hope  in  the  Pentateuch 521 

§  230.  The  promise  in  2  Sam.  vii.  as  the  foundation  of  the  Messianic  idea 

in  its  stricter  sense 523 

§  231.  The  development  of  the  idea  of  the  Messiah  in  the  Prophets  ;  the 
older  prophetic  writings  ;  the  prophetic  doctrine  concerning  the 
nature  of  the  Messiah 526 

§  232-234.  The  office  and  work  of  the  Messiah 530 

PART   III.— OLD  TESTAMENT   WISDOM. 

§  235,  236.  General  preliminary  remarks 537-539 

I.  Objective  Divine  Wisdom. 

§  237.  The  part  of  wisdom  as  an  attribute  of  God  in  the  universe.  Its 
personification. 

§  238.  The  Old  Testament  view  of  nature 541 

§  239.  The  intervention  of  wisdom  in  human  affairs 545 

II.  Subjective  Human  Wisdom. 

§  240.  The  fear  of  the  Lord  the  subjective  principle  of  wisdom 546 

§  241,  242.  Practical  wisdom 547-548 

III.  MoKAL  Good. 

§  243.  Its  realization  in  the  individual  life 550 

§  244.  Eealization  of  moral  good  in  the  various  social  spheres.     The  view 

taken  in  Proverbs  of  evil  and  pain 553 

IV.  The  Enigmas  or  Human  Lite.     The  Struggle  foe  this  Solution. 

§  245.  The  enigmas  themselves   556 

§  246.  The  struggle  to  solve  the  enigmas  relating  to  this  subject  in  the 

Psalms 558 

§  247,  248.  Solution  of  the  enigmas  in  the  Book  of  Job 561-564 

V.  Kenunciation  of  the  Solution  in  the  Book  op  Ecclesiastes. 

§  249.  Standpoint  of  this  Book.     Inquiry  concerning  divine  retribution  and 

immortality 565 

§  250.  Moral  teaching  of  the  Book.     Conclusion 568 

Index  of  names  and  subjects 571 

Index  of  texts 581 


Il^TEODUOTOET  LECTURE.* 


Within  the  last  few  years  it  has  frequently  been  said,  especially  in  ecclesiastical 
meetings,  that  a  special  need  of  the  age  is  a  fuller  recognition  of  the  importance 
of  the  Old  Testament  for  religious  knowledge  and  life,  and  that  the  treasures  of 
this  book,  so  little  known,  especially  to  so-called  persons  of  culture,  should  be 
more  fully  laid  open  to  the  body  of  the  Church.  To  this  end  the  first  requisite 
is,  that  theologians  form  a  more  thorough  acquaintance  with  the  Old  Testament, 
especially  that  they  become  more  familiar  with  it  as  a  whole.  It  is  true  of  every  in- 
tellectual product,  that  it  cannot  be  properly  estimated  by  those  who  concern  them- 
selves merely  with  its  external  features,  or  with  individual  fragments  of  it  ;  and 
of  the  Bible  this  is  peculiarly  true.  What  is  unfolded  in  the  Scriptures  is  one 
great  econom^,  of  salvation — unum  continuum  systema,  as  Bengel  puts  it— an  organ- 
ism of  divine  acts  and  testimonies,  which,  beginning  in  Genesis  with  the  creation, 
advances  progressively  to  its  completion  in  the  person  and  work  of  Christ,  and  is 
to  find  its  close  in  the  new  heaven  and  earth  predicted  in  the  Apocalypse  ;  and  it 
is  only  in  connection  with  this  whole  that  the  details  can  be  properly  estimated. 
He  who  has  not  learned  to  understand  the  Old  Testament  in  its  historical  connec- 
tion may  bring  to  light  much  that  is  valuable  and  worth  knowing  in  respect  to 
particular  things,  but  he  lacks  the  right  key  to  its  meaning,  and  therefore  true 
joy  in  the  study  of  it ;  he  easily  stumbles  at  the  puzzles  which  lie  everywhere  on 
the  surface  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  from  them  he  condemns  the  whole.  Now, 
to  introduce  to  the  organic  historical  knowledge  of  the  Old  Testament  is  the  ob- 
ject of  the  branch  of  study  to  which  these  lectures  are  to  be  devoted.  We  must  not 
think  its  dignity  impaired  by  meeting  the  practical  want  indicated  above  ;  nay, 
in  general,  he  is  no  true  theologian  who  leaves  an  open  breach  between  science 
and  life.  We  claim  for  Old  Testament  Theology  also  no  small  importance  for 
science,  especially  for  Systematic  Theology.  This  importance  it  possesses  as  a 
part  of  Biblical  Theology,  since,  in  virtue  of  the  Protestant  principle  of  the 
authority  of  Scripture,  every  question  for  which  the  Protestant  theologian  seeks 
an  answer  leads  back,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  Scripture,  and  the  historical  in- 
vestigation of  the  divine  revelation  it  contains. 

In  its  development  as  an  independent  science,  Biblical  Theology  is  one  of  the 
most  recent  branches  of  theology.  We  shall  see  by  and  by  that  the  name  and 
conception  of  Biblical  Theology  as  a  special  historical  science  arose  only  in  the 

*  Delivered  at  the  beginning  of  the  course,  in  October,  1870.  A  few  of  the  first  sentences,  as  being 
of  only  passing  interest,  are  omitted.— D. 


2  OPENING   WORDS. 

course  of  tho  last  century,  and  that  the  division  into  Old  and  New  Testament 
Theology  was  made  still  later.  The  earlier  theologians  did  not  distinguish 
between  Dogmatic  and  Biblical  Theology,  and  were  still  farther  from  the  idea 
of  dividing  Old  and  New  Testament  Theology,  thus  ignoring  the  gradual  progress 
of  revelation,  and  the  constant  connection  of  the  revealed  word  with  the  progres- 
sive history  of  revelation,  and  treating  the  Old  and  New  Testament  as  a  sort  of 
promptuarium,  which  could  be  used  alike  in  all  its  parts — proof-texts  for  every 
Christian  doctrine  being  brought  together  from  the  various  parts  of  the  Bible. 
We  are  now  far  beyond  such  onesidedness,  although  some  recent  Old  Testament 
theologians  (Hengstenberg)  still  show  a  tendency  to  confound  the  two  Testa- 
ments after  the  fashion  of  the  older  orthodoxy. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  are  met  in  recent  times  by  a  view  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment which  entirely  dissevers  the  Old  Testament  religion  from  any  specific 
connection  with  the  New  Testament,  placing  it  on  the  same  line  with  the  other 
pre-Christian  religions,  which  also  in  their  own  way  were  a  preparation  for 
Christianity— a  view  of  the  Old  Testament  which  scarcely  allows  its  theology 
to  claim  a  higher  significance  for  the  theological  knowledge  of  the  Chris- 
tian, than  could,  for  example,  be  ascribed  to  the  theology  of  Homer.  This 
antipathy  to  the  Old  Testament  in  the  spirit  of  Marcion  a?id  Schleiermacher 
is  still  prevalent  among  theologians,  though  far  less  so  than  it  was  twenty  or 
thirty  years  ago.  From  tlieir  point  of  view,  the  name  Old  Testament  religion 
is  as  far  as  possible  avoided,  and  Judaism  and  Jewish  religion  are  spoken 
of  by  preference,  although  every  one  may  learn  from  history  that  the  Old 
Testament  and  Judaism  are  distinct — that  Judaism  begins  where  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  about  to  end,  viz.,  with  Ezra  and  the  wisdom  of  the  scribes  who 
succeeded  him.  This  view  consistently  leads  to  the  denial  of  the  specific  char- 
acter, as  a  divine  revelation,  of  the  New  Testament  also — of  Christianity.  On 
this  point  we  must  not  allow  ourselves  to  be  deceived.  The  relation  of  the  New 
Testament  to  the  Old  is  such  that  both  stand  or  fall  together.  The  New  Tes- 
tament assumes  the  existence  of  the  Old  Testament  law  and  prophecy  as  its 
positive  presupposition.  According  to  the  New  Testament,  God  made  Chris- 
tianity to  issue  from  other  elements  than  those  which  the  modern  destructive 
criticism  is  accustomed  to  recognize.  We  cannot  have  the  redeeming  God  of 
the  New  Covenant  without  the  Creator  and  covenant  God  preached  in  the  Old  ; 
we  cannot  disconnect  the  Redeemer  from  the  Old  Testament  predictions  which 
He  came  to  fulfil.  No  New  Testament  idea,  indeed,  is  fully  set  forth  in  the  Old 
Testament,  but  the  genesis  of  all  the  ideas  of  the  New  Testament  relating  to 
salvation  lies  in  the  Old  Testament.  Even  Schleiermacher  was  compelled  to  give 
a  striking  testimony  to  the  organic  connection  of  the  two  Testaments,  which  in 
theory  he  denied,  when  he  reintroduced  into  doctrinal  theology  the  treatment  of 
the  work  of  Christ  according  to  His  threefold  office  [of  prophet,  priest,  and 
king].  Against  the  assertion  that,  to  gain  the  true  sense  of  Scripture,  we  must 
put  aside  evciry thing  that  is  Israclitish,  or,  as  the  saying  is,  everything  that  is 
Jewish,  or,  in  Bunsen's  words,  must  translate  from  Semitic  into  Japhetic,  our 
position  is  with  Hofmann  (in  his  Schriftlcrrcis),  that  the  history  contained  in 
Scripture  being  the  history  of  Israel,  is  wliat  makes  it  Holy  Scripture  ;  for  Israel 
is  the  people  wliose  liistory  is  the  call  to  salvation.     'II   aurripia  ek  tuv  'lovdaiuv 


OPENIKG   WORDS.  3 

earlv,  says  our  Lord  to  the  woman  of  Samaria.  Not  to  conceal  God  from  the 
world,  but  to  reveal  him  to  the  world  as  the  Holy  One  of  whom  heathenism  is 
ignorant,  is  the  work  for  which  Israel  was  chosen.  In  Israel  such  livmg  forces 
were  implanted,  that  it  was  only  from  this  people  that  the  God-man,  the  Re- 
deemer of  the  world,  could  be  born.  The  whole  national  figure  of  Israel  ;  the 
election  and  the  rejection  ;  the  curse  that  lies  upon  the  nation,  which  Hitzig 
has  compared  to  the  oyster,  which  produces  the  pearl  by  its  own  destruction — 
all  these  are  revelations  of  God  to  the  world. 

The  theology  of  the  Old  Testament  therefore  still  retains  its  importance  for 
Christian  doctrine,  though  not  in  the  same  way  in  which  the  older  Protestant 
theology  employed  it.  The  old  atomistic  system  of  Scripture  proof  must  be  super- 
seded by  one  which  shows  that  the  truths  of  salvation  formulated  in  doctrinal 
statements  are  the  result  of  the  whole  historical  process  through  which  Revela- 
tion has  passed.  The  possibility  of  such  Scripture  proof  is  presented  by  Biblical 
Theology,  which  exhibits  the  Bible  revelation  in  its  totality  and  in  its  gradual 
historical  course,  and  so  displays  the  genesis  of  the  scriptural  teachings  from 
which  doctrinal  propositions  are  to  be  coined,  and  the  connection  in  which  they 
appear  in  the  divine  economy  of  salvation.  Biblical  Theology  employed  in  the 
construction  of  Systematic  Theology  not  only  serves  continually  to  renew  and 
deepen  the  latter-  in  regard  to  existing  dogmas,  but  also  to  give  fuller  justice  to 
those  biblical  doctrines  which,  in  the  dogmatic  labors  of  former  centuries,  fell 
too  much  into  the  shade.  For  Scripture  is,  as  Oetinger  has  called  it,  the  store- 
book  of  the  world,  the  store-book  of  all  times  :  it  offers  to  the  Church  in  every 
age  just  such  instruction  as  it  specially  requires.  Thus,  to  give  a  single  example, 
recent  times  have  directed  attention  to  biblical  eschatology  and  invested  it  with 
an  interest  in  which  the  older  Protestant  Theology  had  no  share. 

In  these  remarks  I  think  I  have  brought  forward  the  principal  points  of  view 
from  which  the  importance  of  Old  Testament  Theology  is  to  be  estimated,  and 
which  are  my  guides  in  dealing  with  the  Old  Testament.  Of  the  greatness  and 
difficulty  of  the  task,  no  one  can  have  a  livelier  conviction  than  myself.  There 
are  good  reasons  why,  although  there  are  innumerable  monographs  on  isolated 
portions  of  Biblical  Theology,  there  are  few  works  on  the  whole  subject,  and  in 
particular,  works  on  the  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament.  Some  of  these  are 
posthumous.  If  these  lectures  awake  in  one  or  other  of  you  an  inclination  to 
labor  at  the  solution  of  this  problem  independently,  and  not  through  the  glasses 
of  a  theological  system  or  a  critical  school,  and  to  devote  to  the  Old  Testament 
more  thorough  study,  with  a  receptive  sense  of  its  holy  grandeur,  tliis  will  be  the 
best  result  which  I  could  wish.  Let  us  begin,  then,  the  journey  that  lies  before 
us,  with  trust  in  God,  that  we  may  pass  through  it  witliout  interruption  to  the 
end,  and,  on  reaching  it,  may  thank  Him  for  His  help  in  the  wa^ 


INTRODUCTION. 


§1- 

Summary. 
The  Introduction  has — 

1.  To  depie  the  theology  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  its  relation  to  the 

cognate  branches  of  biblical  science. 

2.  To  present  the  (inception  of  the  Old  Testament  religion  presupposed  in 

our  exhibition  of  the  subject,  together  with  the  scientific  standpoint  of 
Old  Testament  theology  thereby  given.  • 

Followed  by — 

3.  A  survey  of  the  history  of  this  branch  of  theology  ;  and 

4.  A  discussion  of  the  method  of  Old  Testament  theology,  and  its  divisions. 


I.— DEFINITION  AND   LIMITS   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   THEOLOGY. 

§2. 

DEFINITION   OP   OLD   TESTAMENT    THEOLOGY.       IT   EMBRACES   THE  WHOLE  FIELD  OP 
REVELATION  IN  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

The  theology  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  first  main  division  of  Biblical  The- 
ology, is  the  historical  exhibition  of  the  development  of  the  religion  contained  in  thb 
canonical  boohs  of  the  Old  Testameiit. 

As  a  historical  science,  Biblical  Theology  is  distinguished  from  the  systematic 
statement  of  biblical  doctrine  by  this,  that  while  the  latter  investigates  the  unity 
of  divine  truth,  as  seen  in  the  whole  course  of  revelation,  and  the  aggregate  of 
its  manifestations,  the  former  has  the  task  of  exhibiting  the  religion  of  the 
Bible,  according  to  its  progressive  development  and  the  variety  of  the  forms  in  which 
it  appears.  The  theology  of  the  Old  Testament  has  therefore  to  follow  the 
gradual  progress  by  which  the  Old  Testament  revelation  advanced  to  the  com- 
pletion of  salvation  in  Christ  ;  and  to  bring  into  view  from  all  sides  the  forms 
in  which,  under  the  Old  Covenant,  the  communion  between  God  and  man  found 
expression. 

Now,  since  the  Old  Testament  revelation  (cf.  §  6)  did  not  present  itself  simply 
in  words  and  as  a  divine  testimony  concerning  doctrine,  but  was  made  in  a 
connected  course  of  divine  deeds  and  institutions,  and  on  the  basis  of  these  pro- 
duced a  peculiarly  shaped  religious  life  ;  and  further,  since  all  knowledge  derived 


6  liTTRODUCTION.  [§   ^« 

from  revelation  is  not  given  independently  of  the  facts  of  the  history  of  salvation 
and  the  divinely  instituted  rules  of  life,  but  develops  itself  in  continual  connec- 
tion with  them  ;  it  follows  that  the  theology  of  the  Old  Testament  cannot  limit 
itself  to  the  directly  didactic  matter  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  must  embrace  the 
essential  factors  of  the  history  of  the  divine  kingdom  in  the  Old  Covenant  :  its 
task  is,  in  short,  the  exhibition  of  the  whole  of  the  Old  Tedurnent  dispensation  (1). 

Even  on  this  view  of  the  subject,  the  name  Old  Testament  Theology  is  still  too 
broad  (2),  but  it  is  at  least  more  appropriate  than  other  names  which  have  been 
chosen  for  the  exhibition  of  the  Old  Testament  revelation,  particularly  than  the 
term.  Old  Testament  Dogmatics  (3). 

(1)  This  conception  of  the  theology  of  the  Old  Testament  is  in  accordance  with 
the  conception  of  Biblical  Theology  presented  by  Ch.  Fr.  Schmid  (in  a  treatise 
On  the  Interests  and  Position  of  the  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament  in  our 
Time,  Tiib.  Zeitschr.  f.  Theol.  1838  ;  and  in  his  well-known  Handbooh  of  New 
Testament  Theology).  This  conception  has,  however,  met  with  much  opposition. 
The  common  conception  is,  that  this  branch  should  limit  itself  to  'he  exhibition 
of  the  specially  didactic  contents  of  both  Testaments.  But  here  arises  in  the  Old 
Testament  the  great  difficulty,  that  this  contains  proportionally  very  little  directly 
didactic  matter.  A  separate  exhibition  of  Old  Testament  religious  teaching  is, 
to  be  sure,  possiljle  ;  but  if  it  is  not  to  prove  quite  incomplete,  it  will  not  be  able 
to  dispense  with  a  reference  at  all  points  to  the  history  of  the  covenant  people 
and  tlie  institutions  of  the  theocracy.  This  has  been  distinctly  recognized  even 
by  Steudel  {Vorlesungen  uber  die  Theol.  des  A.  T.,  Is40),  although  he  limits  this 
branch  to  the  exhibition  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Old  Testament.  He  says  with 
truth  (p.  18  f.)  :  "  We  should  form  for  ourselves  an  incomplete  idea  of  the 
substance  of  the  Old  Testament  religion,  and  of  biblical  religion  in  general,  if  we 
looked  upon  it  only  as  doctrine.  It  is  facts  which,  with  the  greatest  distinctness, 
are  held  before  us  as  the  source  of  the  growth  of  religious  conceptions  and 
religious  life.  It  was  not  on  the  basis  of  consciousness  that  objective  views  in 
religion  established  themselves.  Consciousness  did  not  create  the  thing  held 
forth  as  fact  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  consciousness  was  produced  by  the  facts, 
and  often  the  facts  lie  before  us,  from  which  at  a  later  time  was  deduced  the 
religious  element  which  they  represented  and  offered  as  their  lesson."  Now, 
altiiougli  this  is  recognized  by  biblical  theologians,  it  has  been  generally  thought 
to  be  sufficient  to  give  a  merely  introductory  survey  of  the  history  of  revela- 
tion, as  has  been  done  by  Steudel,  and  also  by  Schultz,  in  the  most  recent  Old 
Testament  Theology.  But  on  this  plan  it  is  not  possible  to  exhibit  properly  the 
internal  connection  of  the  doctrine  of  Revelation  with  the  revealing  history — the 
continual  progress  of  the  former  in  connection  with  the  latter.  We  include, 
therefore,  in  Old  Testament  Tlieology  the  chief  features  of  the  history  of  the 
divine  kingdom  in  the  Old  Covenant. 

(2)  Properly  speaking,  all  the  biblical  branches,  viz.  Biblical  Introduction, 
Ilermeneutics,  etc.,  should  be  included  under  the  name  Biblical  Theology,  as 
has  been  done  by  Rosenkranz  in  his  EncyclopcRdia  of  Theological  Science,  and  by 
others. 

(3)  Tlie  term  Dogmatics  (which  De  Wette  and  Rosenkranz  substitute),  or  even 
History  of  Old  'Testament  Doctrine,  is  not  appropriate  for  the  exhibition  of  the  doc- 
trinal contents  of  the  Old  Testament,  even  if  we  extend  the  notion  of  Dogmatics 
(see  Rothe,  Zur  Dogmatih,  p.  11)  to  the  practical  sphere,  in  the  sense  of  66yiiaTa, 
Ei)h.  ii.  15,  Col.  ii.  14.  Dogmas,  the  positive  doctrines  of  faith  and  life  which  de- 
mand acknowledgment  and  obedience,  are  found  in  the  Old  Testament,  for  the 
most  part  only  in  tlie  Pentateuch  fas.  for  example,  the  imposing  passage  :  "  Hear 
O  Israel,  Jehovah  our  God  is  one  Jehovah"— Deut.  vi.  4).  The  further  develop- 
ment of  religious  knowledge,  which  is  found  in  the  prophetic  books,  the  Psalms 


§   3.]  RELATIOK   TO   OTHER   0.    T.    feRAKCttES.  ^ 

and  tlic  books  of  the  Ilhokhma  (Job,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes),  are  inaccurately 
characterized  by  tliis  expression.  Even  the  prophetic  announcements  of  the 
Messiah  and  Ilis  kingdom,  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  the  like,  first 
became  doctrinal  propositions — essential  jiarts  of  religious  confession — from  the 
standpoint  of  the  New  Testament  fulfilment.  Still  less  does  that  wrestling  of 
the  Israelitish  spirit  with  the  problems  of  life,  brought  out  in  many  Psalms  and 
in  the  book  of  Job,  lead  to  a  doctrinal  result.  The  theology  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament has  to  handle  as  such  tchat  is  only  in  germ,  and  of  the  nature  of  presen- 
timent ;  it  has  to  show  how  the  Old  Testament,  in  the  narrowness  and  unfinished 
state  which  characterizes  in  many  parts  its  doctrinal  contents,  points  from  itself 
to  something  higher.  The  Old  Testament  is  of  course  treated  differently  by  the 
later  Judaism.  Judaism  finds  iu  the  Old  Testament  the  completion  of  dogma,  as 
Mohammedanism  does  in  the  Koran.  However,  it  is  characteristic  of  the  Jewisli 
theology  that  it  always  takes  pains  to  prove  from  the  Pentateuch  even  the  doc- 
trines primarily  drawn  from  prophecy,  such  as  those  of  the  Messiah  and  the  resur- 
rection, in  order  to  invest  them  with  a  doctrinal  character. 


§  3. 
RELATION  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT  THEOLOGY  TO  OTHER  OLD    TESTAMENT  BRANCHES. 

Among  the  other  branches  of  Old  Testament  study,  what  is  called  Introductioti 
to  the  Old  Testament,  or  the  history  of  the  Old  Testament  writings,  falls  quite 
outside  of  the  sphere  of  Old  Testament  Theology  ;  they  stand,  however,  in  a 
relation  of  mutual  dependence  on  each  other,  in  virtue  of  which  the  criticism  of  the 
Old  Testament  writings  must  also  have  respect  to  the  results  of  Old  Testament 
Theology  (1).  On  the  other  hand.  Old  Testament  Theology  has  a  part  of  its 
contents  in  common  with  Biblical  Archceology,  which  treats  of  the  whole  natural 
and  social  condition  of  the  old  Israelitish  people  ;  for,  in  fact,  all  the  important 
relations  of  life  in  Israel  are  treated  as  parts  of  religion,  and  belong  essentially  to 
the  manifestation  of  the  Old  Testament  religion,  because  the  stamp  of  the 
communion  of  the  people  with  the  holy  covenant  God  was  to  be  imprinted  upon 
them.  Still,  even  such  common  constituents  in  the  above-mentioned  branches 
will  demand  in  each  case  a  treatment  differing  not  merely  in  fulness,  but  in  some 
measure  also  in  form.  With  regard  to  the  ordinances  of  worship,  the  theology 
of  the  Old  Testament  must  treat  of  these  so  far  as  the  communion  of  God  and  the 
people  is  carried  out  in  them,  and  as  they  consequently  present  a  system  of  re- 
ligious symbols.  On  the  other  hand,  the  discussion  of  all  purely  technical 
questions  must  be  left  to  archaeology  (2). 

Finally,  as  to  the  relation  of  Old  Testament  Theology  to  the  Israelitish  history, 
the  former  has  certainly  to  present  the  leading  features  in  the  facts  of  revelation 
which  form  the  historical  basis  of  the  Old  Testament  religion,  and  in  the  divine 
leading  of  Israel  ;  but  only  as  this  history  lived  in  the  spirit  of  the  organs  of 
revelation,  and  was  the  object  of  religious  faith.  It  is  bound  to  reproduce  faith- 
fully, and  without  admixture  of  modern  ways  of  looking  at  history,  the  view 
which  the  Holy  Scriptures  themselves  give  of  the  purpose  of  salvation  which  is 
carried  out  in  Israel.  The  history  of  Israel,  on  the  other  hand,  has  not  only  to 
present  all  sides  of  the  historical  development  of  the  people  of  Israel,  even  in  its 
purely  secular  connections,  thus  necessitating  the  examination  of  chronological 
and  such  like  questions,  but  to  sift  and  vindicate,  by  historico-critical  research, 


S  INTRODUCTION.  [§  3. 

the  real  historical  facts  which  the  theology  of  the  Old  Testament  reproduces  as 
the  coutents  of  faith  (3). 

(1)  The  prevalent  manner  of  treating  Biblical  Theology  places  it  in  an  entirely 
one-sided  relation  of  dependence  upon  the  criticism  of  the  biblical  writings. 
This  process  is  described  by  Rothe,  for  instance  {Zui-  Bogmatlk,  p.  304  ff.),  as 
follows  :  "  In  order  to  extract  the  actual  facts  of  revelation  from  the  Bible,  the 
theologian  must  beforehand,  by  critical  methods,  make  the  Bible  'available' 
for  his  purpose.  For  only  when  he  has  completed  his  investigation  of  the  origin 
of  the  biblical  books,  and  has  tested  on  this  basis  their  value  as  historical  sources, 
can  he  gain  from  them,  as  far  as  they  are  interpreted,  the  true  teachings  of  reve- 
lation." There  would  be  nothing  to  object  against  this  proposition  of  Rothe, 
were  it  not  that  the  position  t6ward  the  contents  of  the  records  of  revelation, 
which  the  critic  takes  beforehand,  in  many  respects  determines  for  him  the  way 
in  which  he  conceives  of  the  origin  of  the  biblical  books.  If  a  critic  takes  a 
view  of  revelation  which  is  far  from  harmonious  with  the  biblical  one,  and  devises 
a  scheme  of  sacred  history  which  the  history  itself  does  not  acknowledge,  he  will 
of  course  from  these  presuppositions  judge  of  the  time  when  these  books  origi- 
nated, and  of  other  things,  quite  differently  from  what  they  themselves  testify. 
Besides,  Rothe  does  not  himself  claim  for  the  critic  an  absolute  freedom  from  all 
preconceived  opinions,  for  he  says,  p.  309:  "The  one  important  point  here 
is,  that  to  us  revelation  is  in  itself,  apart  from  the  Bible,  actually  a  reality.  He 
before  whose  eyes,  by  means  of  the  Bible  as  its  record,  revelation  stands,  in  all 
its  living  majesty,  as  a  mighty  historical  fact,  can  confidently  exercise  the  most 
thorough  and  impartial  criticism  on  the  Holy  Scrijitures  ;  he  takes  toward  it  as 
a  believe?;  a  free  position,  without  any  anxiety  whatever." 

On  the  point  "  that  revelation  in  itself,  aside  from  the  Bible,  is  something 
real,"  there  can  be  no  reasonable  controversy.  The  Bible  is  not  revelation  itself  ; 
it  is  the  record  of  revelation.  Neither  do  we  deny  the  proposition,  that  he  to 
whom  the  reality  of  revelation  is  made  certain  by  means  of  the  Bible  as  its  record, 
takes  toward  the  Scriptures  "a  free  position  of  faith."  But  now,  if  it  is 
only  through  the  Bible  that  the  theologian  receives  this  impression  of  the 
majesty  of  revelation  as  a  mighty  historical  fact,  it  should  rather  be  expected  of 
him  that,  before  he  criticises  the  Bible,  he  should  first  surrender  himself  to  its 
contents  witliout  preconceived  opinions — should  let  the  revelation  in  its  majesty 
work  directly  upon  him,  in  order,  as  Rothe  (p.  339)  strikingly  expresses  it,  "  to 
make  it  a  constant  factor  in  the  experiences  of  his  personal  life."  He  who  has 
won  in  this  way  the  conviction  that  Holy  Scripture  is  the  truly  witnessing  record 
of  the  divine  ])urpo3e  of  salvation,  and  of  the  historical  facts  which  serve  to  its 
realization,  and  that  in  it  is  contained  the  word  of  God  as  the  means  by  which 
every  one  can  lay  iiold  of  salvation — he,  in  the  joyful  consciousness  of  his  faith 
in  revelation,  will  certainly  refuse  to  be  bound  by  human  traditions  concerning 
Holy  Scripture,  whetiier  these  originated  with  the  Jewish  scribes  or  with  the 
ancient  Churcli,  or  with  our  older  Protestant  tiieology,  whatever  be  the  respect 
which  he  may  feel  due  to  them  ;  but  neither  will  he  surrender  himself  to  a 
criticism  in  which  we  can  everywhere  see  that  it  does  not  rest  upon  the  con- 
sciousness of  faith  wliich  Rothe  commends.  He  knows  tliat  a  criticism,  with  the 
results  of  wliich  this  treatment  of  the  Bible  is  incompatible,  cannot  have  found 
the  truth,  because  it  fails  to  explain  that  which  the  Bible  in  tlie  Church  has 
proved  itself  to  be,  and  so  leaves  unsolved  the  very  problem  of  historical  criti- 
cism— the  explanation  of  the  facts.  He  simply  makes  the  inquiry.  What  sort 
of  a  Bible  would  be  the  result  of  the  factors  which  that  criticism  employs  ? 
Would  it  be  a  Bible  which  presents  to  us  this  grand  course  of  development  of 
revelation,  this  grand  system  of  facts  and  Avitnesses  through  the  written  word  ? 
which,  moreover,  finds  its  proof  in  men's  hearts,  as  the  Bible  has  done  for  two 
thousand  years  ?  Especially  in  regard  to  the  Old  Testament,  the  believer  in 
revelation  recognizes  it  as  his  task,  before  all  things,  to  follow  the  gradual  path 


§  3.]  RELATION  TO    OTHER  0.    T.    BRANCHES.  9 

of  development  presented  therein,  and  at  the  same  time  to  value  the  continuous 
connection  in  vfhich  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  stand  to  the  ever-advancing 
revelation.  In  this  respect  it  is  inexplicable,  when,  for  example,  Schultz  in  his 
recent  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament^  which  contains  so  much  excellent  matter,  on 
the  one  hand  sets  Moses  so  high  as  an  organ  of  revelation,  but  thinks  this  man, 
who  lived  in  an  age  in  which,  as  shown  b.y  the  Egyptian  antiquities,  writing  was 
quite  a  familiar  art,  to  have  written  absolutely  nothing  but  a  few  scanty  scraps. 
We  must  not  forget  that  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  stand  in  such  essential 
connection  with  the  history  of  revelation,  that  the  fultiller  of  Old  Testament  reve- 
lation could  at  the  same  time  represent  himself  as  the  fulfiller  of  Old  Testament 
Scripture. 

As  regards  the  mutual  relations  hetween  Introduction  and  Old  Testament  Tlieology^ 
it  will  often  be  shown  in  the  course  of  this  work  how  the  Old  Testament,  in 
reference  to  its  didactic  contents,  presents  not  a  uniform  (completed)  whole,  but 
a  regular  progression  of  religious  knowledge.  Moreover,  not  only  must  the 
general  view  which  we  have  of  the  g\..,dual  progress  of  Old  Testament  revelation 
influence  our  determination  of  the  position  which  is  due  to  any  one  book  in  the 
whole  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  the  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament  must  pay 
regard  to  the  course  of  development  of  the  individual  doctrines  of  the  Old 
Testament.  For  example,  how  is  a  genetic  exhibition  of  the  Old  Testament 
doctrine  of  the  nature  and  attributes  of  God,  of  angelology,  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
state  of  man  after  death,  etc.,  possible,  on  the  presupposition  that  the  Pentateuch 
is  a  comparatively  recent  production  ?  "We  shall  see  how  in  many  cases  the  Penta- 
teuch manifestly  contains  that  which  constitutes  the  basis  for  the  development  of 
the  didactic  matter  in  Prophecy  and  Hhokhma  [for  definition  of  this  term  see 
§  235].  This  is  a  feature  which  the  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament  books,  as  a 
rule,  either  completely  overlooks  or  handles  in  the  most  superficial  manner.  It 
is,  to  be  sure,  no  proof  that  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present  form  is  a  production  of 
Moses  ;  but  it  does  show  the  relative  age  of  the  Pentateuch,  even  in  its  construc- 
tion, as  compared  with  the  prophetical  books. 

(2)  The  definition  of  archseology  given  in  the  text  is  that  of  Gesenius  {Hall. 
EncyMop.,  x.  74)  and  De  Wette  (Lehrluch  der  hebr.  jiid.  Arch.  §  1  and  2),  with 
which  Keil  (Handb.  der  hibl.  Arch.  §  1)  agrees,  according  to  which  it  has  to  exhibit 
the  forms  of  life  in  Israel  as  the  people  elected  to  be  the  bearer  of  revelation. 

(3)  In  reference  to  the  relation  of  Old  Testament  Theology  to  thehistory  of  Israel, 
I  agree  with  Schmid  (comp.  §  ii.  1)  and  differ  most  from  the  ordinary  view. 
That  history  contains  a  series  of  facts  wliich  form  the  basis  of  the  Old  Testament 
religion.  If  we  deny  the  exodus  of  Israel  from  Egypt,  and  the  giving  of  the  law 
from  Sinai,  the  Old  Testment  religion  floats  in  the  air.  Such  facts  can  no  more 
be  separated  from  the  religion  of  the  Old  Testament  than  the  historical  facts  of 
Christ's  person  can  be  from  Christianity.  Hence  Old  Testament  theology  must 
embrace  the  chief  facts  in  the  history  of  the  divine  kingdom,  since  it  must  present 
the  Old  Testament  religion  not  only  as  doctrine,  but  in  the  whole  compass  of  its 
manifestation.  But  because  it  ought  to  report  what  men  in  the  Old  Testament 
believed,  in  what  faith  they  lived  and  died,  it  has  to  exhibit  the  history  as  Israel 
believed  it.  As  it  cannot  be  our  task  in  an  Old  Testament  Theology  to  harmonize 
the  Old  Testament  history  of  creation  and  other  things  of  this  kind  with  the 
propositions  of  the  newer  physical  sciences,  we  have  only,  in  the  exhibition  of 
the  history  of  revelation,  to  reproduce  the  view  which  Holy  Scripture  itself  has. 
With  ethnological  and  geographical  research  and  the  like  we  have  nothing  to 
do.  We  thus  conceive  of  the  relation  of  the  theology  of  the  Old  Testament  to 
the  Israelitish  history,  in  a  manner  similar  to  that  in  which  C.  F.  Nagelsbach,  in 
his  excellent  and  well-known  work,  has  placed  the  relations  of  the  Homeric  theol- 
ogy to  mythology,  when  he  states,  as  the  object  of  the  former  (Preface  to  Home- 
rische  Theol.  ed.  3,  p.  xiv.),  to  give  "  the  knowledge  which  Homer's  men  had  of 
the  Deity,  and  the  effects  produced  by  this  knowledge  in  life  and  faith,"  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  makes  the  work  of  the  mythologist  to  consist  in  "  the  criticism 
and  deciphering  of  the  historical  development  of  mythological  representations." 


10  INTRODUCTION.  [§   ■^• 

That  Old  Testament  Theology  has  a  history,  as  its  critical  sister  science,  while 
Homeric  theology  has  only  a  mythology,  is  owing  to  the  different  character  of 
the  two  religions.  Here,  indeed,  there  must  be  strife  between  those  who— and 
I  avow  myself  to  belong  to  this  class — acknowledge  as  facts_  what  the  Old  Tes- 
tament religion  lays  down  as  such,  and  are  consequently  convinced  that  the  thing 
believed  was  also  a  thing  which  tookjjlace  ;  and  between  those  who  see  hi  the  Old 
Testament  faith  mainly  a  product  of  religious  ideas,  the  historical  basis  of  which 
can  be  ascertained  only  by  a  critical  process  resting  on  rationalistic  presupposi- 
tions. The  latter  party,  who  despise  the  key  offered  by  the  Old  Testament 
itself  for  the  comprehension  of  its  history,  have  been  so  fortunate  in  their 
attempts  at  explanation,  as  to  have  turned  the  providential  leading  of  Israel  into 
a  dark  riddle.  (Rosenkranz,  in  his  biography  of  Hegel,  p.  49,  informs  us  that 
the  Jewish  history  repelled  him  (Hegel)  just  as  violently  as  it  captivated  him, 
and  troubled  him  like  a  dark  riddle  all  his  life.)  But  whoever  occupies  the 
liistorico-critical  standpoint  on  this  subject  should  endeavor  to  get  at  the  point 
of  view  of  the  Bible  itself  in  its  purity,  without  admixture  of  modern  views.  In 
the  common  treatment  of  the  theology  of  the  Old  Testament,  however,  we  find  a 
peculiar  lack  of  firmness;  where  it  is  acknowledged  that  the  Old  Testament  religion 
rests  on  facts,  what  these  facts  are  is  stated  as  indefinitely  as  possible.  On  the 
other  hand,  no  criticism  has  as  yet  robbed  of  its  force  the  judgment  of  Herder 
respecting  the  history  of  the  Old  Testament  :  "  A  thing  of  that  kind  cannot  be 
invented  ;  such  history,  with  all  that  depends  on  it,  and  all  that  is  connected 
with  it — in  short,  such  a  people  cannot  be  a  fiction.  Its  yet  uncompleted  provi- 
dential guidance  is  the  greatest  poem  of  the  ages,  and  advances  probably  (we  say 
certainly,  on  the  ground  of  Rom.  xi.  35  ff.)  to  the  solution  of  the  mysterious 
riddle  of  the  world's  history." 

§4. 

SOITRCES   OP   OLD   TESTAMENT   THEOLOGY. 

The  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament,  according  to  the  definition  in  §  2,  must 
limit  itself  to  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  canon  as  received  by  the  scribes  in 
Palestine,  and  acknowledged  by  the  Protestant  Church,  thus  excluding  the 
Apocrypha.  For  the  canonical  writings  alone  are  a  record  of  the  history  of 
revelation,  and  a  genuine  production  of  the  spirit,  which  ruled  as  the  principle 
of  life  in  the  Old  Testament  economy.  According  to  the  declarations  of  Christ  in 
Lukexxiv.  44,  Matt.  xi.  13,  etc.,  and  the  whole  apostolic  doctrine,  there  can  be 
no  doubt  concerning  the  limits  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Covenant  (1). 

Looking  from  the  biblical  standpoint,  a  specific  difference  must  be  made 
between  the  law,  which  claims  divine  authority,  and  the  [human]  prescriptions 
added  to  it  and  fencing  it  round — between  ^>r*o;:>Aecy,  which  knows  itself  to 
be  the  organ  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  and  the  scribes  in  their  collective  capacity, 
who  lean  only  on  human  authority,  since,  even  to  a  man  so  eminent  as  Ezra,  who 
stands  at  the  head  of  the  latter,  the  authority  of  an  organ  of  revelation  is  not 
ascribed  (2).  It  may  be  said,  perhaps,  that  tlie  distinction  between  the  Hagio- 
grapha  and  the  Apocryphal  books  is  incapable  of  precise  determination  (as  also 
that  the  composition  of  some  of  the  Ilagiographa  falls  later  than  the  epoch 
which  is  marked  by  the  silence  of  prophecy).  Yet  even  in  the  better  Apocryphal 
books  it  is  impossible  to  ignore  a  lack  of  the  depth  of  meaning  that  is  found  in 
the  Old  Testament,  and  in  many  cases  an  admixture  of  foreign  elements  (3).  At 
all  events,  as  soon  as  the  theology  of  the  Old  Testament  goes  beyond  the  canoni- 
cal books,  there  is  no  firm  principle  'mi  which  to  fix  its  limits  (4).     [Prof.  W. 


§4.J 


SOURCES   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT  THEOLOGY.  U 


Robertson  Smith  {Old  Testameid,  i).  141)  has  well  stated  the  case  :  "They  (the 
Apocryphal  books)  were  not  only  written  after  the  end  of  the  living  progress  of 
the  Old  Testament  revelation,  but  their  contents  add  nothing  to  our  knowledge 
of  that  progress,  and  therefore,  on  a  purely  historical  argument,  and  without 
going  into  any  knotty  theological  questions  as  to  the  precise  nature  of  inspiration, 
we  can  say  on  broad  grounds  of  common-sense  that  these  books  must  not  be  in- 
cluded in  the  Bible  record,  but  that  their  value  is  simply  that  of  documents  for 
the  history  of  the  connection  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament."  Comp,  also 
Ewald  {Lehre  vom  Worte  Oottes)  to  the  same  effect. — D.] 

(1)  In  most  statements  of  Old  Testamer^  theology  the  so-called  Apocrypha  is  in- 
cluded (Schultz,  p.  15  ff.,  excludes  it),  in  this  way  the  significance  of  the  Old 
Testament  ca7ion  is  lost  sight  of.  We  take  the  following  lemmata  from  the  Introduc- 
tion to  the  Old  Testament  (compare  my  article,  "  Eanon  des  A.  T.,"  in  Herzog's 
Theol.  Real-EncyUop.  vii.  p.  244  ff.).  The  Hebrew  writings  in  the  Old  Testament 
form  one  corpus,  which  consists  of  three  parts  :  1.  ni^in,  the  Pentateuch  ;  2. 
D"^5■'^J,  including  (a)  D'Jli^/Kl,  the  earlier  2J>'ophets,  the  historical  books  from 
Joshua  to  Kings — (&)  D'innK,  the  later  prophets,  consisting  of  the  three  greater 
and  the  twelve  lesser  prophets  ;  3.  CIJinJD,  Hagiographa.  From  this  comes  the 
full  title  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  D'3inD1  D'KOJ  min.  With  the  books  contained 
in  the  Hebrew  Bible  are  united,  in  the  Alexandrian  translation,  a  number  of 
writings  of  later  origin,  and  thus  a  more  extensive  collection  of  Old  Testament 
writings  has  been  formed.  On  the  question,  what  value  should  be  attached  to  the 
writings  added  in  the  Greek  Bible,  in  comparison  with  those  in  the  Hebrew  col- 
lection, the  dispute  has  been  chiefly  as  to  the  recognition  of  the  bounds  of  the 
Old  Testament  canon  in  the  Christian  Church.  The  Catholic  Church  sanctioned 
as  canonical  at  the  Council  of  Trent  the  books  which  are  added  in  the  Septua- 
gint,  called  in  the  early  Church  Anagignoskomena  or  ecclesiastical  lessons  (hence 
a  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Eomish  Church 
must  of  necessity  embrace  the  theology  of  these  books).  But  the  Protestant 
Church,  following  the  example  of  Jerome,  gives  the  Anagignoskomena  of  the 
Romish  Church  the  not  quite  suitable  name  of  Apocrypha,  and  rejects  them.  That 
the  canon  of  the  Protestant  Church  is  that  of  the  Judaism  of  Palestine  is  not  dis- 
puted. As  certainly  must  it  be  maintained,  that  the  canon  of  the  Judaism  of 
Palestine,  as  established  in  the  last  century  before  Christ,  and  then  re-sanctioned 
after  temporary  hesitation  at  the  Sanhedrim  in  Jamnia  toward  the  end  of  the  first 
century  of  our  era  [about  a.d.  90]  or  a  few  years  later,  did  not,  as  has  been 
maintained,  rest  upon  an  interest  of  a  simply  literary  nature,  viz.,  to  unite  all  the 
remains  of  Hebrew  writings  w^hich  were  still  to  be  had  ;  for  then  it  would  be 
inconceivable  why  it  did  not  embrace  the  book  of  the  Son  of  Sirach,  which  long 
existed  in  the  original  Hebrew  text.  The  point  in  question  in  the  collection  of 
the  Old  Testament  writings  was  rather,  as  Josephus  distinctly  says  in  the  well- 
known  passage  on  the  canon  (c.  Ap.  i.  8),  concerning  the  diKaiug  de'ia  TreTviaTev/uiva 
/iifSXia.  In  the  same  passage  Josephus  limits  the  Old  Testament  canon  to  the 
time  of  Artaxerxes,  because  from  that  time  forward  an  exact  succession  of  proph- 
ets is  wanting.  It  may  be  said  that  this  is  an  arbitrary  limitation  of  the  Pales- 
tinian scribes,  and  it  has  lately  become  the  fashion  (Ewald,  Dillmann,  Noeldeke) 
to  efface  this  distinction  between  canonical  and  non-canonical  Scriptures.  But 
if  we  look  into  the  JYe^D  Testament,  no  doubt  can  remain  as  to  where  the  Old  and 
the  New  Covenants  are  connected  ;  since  even  the  beginning  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment history  of  revelation  attaches  itself  directly  (comp.  Matt.  xi.  13  f.)  to  the 
close  of  Old  Testament  prophecy  in  Malachi. — A  sharp  controversy  on  the 
Apocrypha  was  carried  on  about  the  middle  of  the  present  century  among  the 
German  theologians.  On  both  sides  weighty  arguments  were  brought  for- 
ward along  with  many  controversial  exaggerations.     The  conclusion  reached  is, 


12  IKTEODUCTION".  [§   4. 

that  that  word  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  is  so  often  referred  to  in  the  New 
Testament  as  a  fulfilled  word,  is  found  only  in  the  writings  of  the  Hebrew 
canon  ;  that  even  if 'we  admit  as  possible  that  there  are  allusions  in  some  of  the 
epistles,  particularly  the  Epistle  of  James,  to  passages  in  the  book  of  the  Son  of 
Sirach  and  the  book  of  Wisdom,  "  yet  there  is  never  more  than  a  simple  allusion, 
and  never  a  quotation  properly  so  called,"  as  even  Stier,  who  is  particularly 
zealous  in  searching  out  such  correspondences  il.  c.  p.  12),  candidly  acknowl- 
edges. 

(2)  With  Graf  {Tlie  Historical  BooTcs  of  the  Old  Testament,  1866),  the  criticism 
of  the  Pentateuch  has  taken  the  turn,  that  many,  declaring  the  legislation  of 
Deuteronomy  to  be  older  than  the  law  in  the  middle  books,  regard  the  Penta- 
teuch as  having  reached  its  final  shape  only  in  the  time  of  Ezra  through  the 
labors  of  a  supplementing  editor.  But  it  is  historically  certain  that,  in  the  time 
after  the  exile,  the  Pentateuch  was  regarded  as  an  inviolable  whole,  because  of 
which  the  fencing  in  (^0)  of  the  Pentateuch  then  began  with  those  ordinances  to 
which  our  Lord  assumes  an  attitude  quite  different  from  His  relation  to  the 
vonoc.  Conf.  §  192  and  Strack's  art.  ''  Ka7iondes  A.  T. , "  in  Herzog,  2d  ed._  [On 
the  appearance  of  Graf's  treatise,  an  account  of  which  will  be  found  in  the 
Bibliotheca  Sacra,  Oct.  1880  and  July,  1882,  it  was  promptly  reviewed  by  Ewald 
in  the  Gdttingen,  Oelehrte  Anzeigei%  June  1866,  pp.  985-991,  who  pronounced  it 
deficient  in  thoroughness,  superficial  and  unsatisfactory.  He  says,  ' '  Whoever 
adopts  the  opinion  that  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  were  written  after 
Deuteronomy  will  never  be  able  to  prove  it,  to  say  nothing  of  the  fact  that  we 
should  then  be  obliged  to  regard  the  contents  of  these  books  as  imaginary  and 
unhistorical."  The  theory,  however,  of  the  Levitical  law  as  being  of  later  origin 
than  the  earlier  prophetical  books,  was  defended  by  Reuss,  who  claims  to  be  its 
author,  Kuenen,  Wellhausen,  and  others,  and  has  been  made  familiar  to  the  Eng- 
lish and  American  public  by  Prof.  W.  Robertson  Smith  in  his  lectures  on  The  Old 
Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,  1881,  and  the  article  "Israel"  in  the  Encycloj>CBdia 
Britannica,  by  Wellhausen.  On  the  other  hand  it  is  repudiated  by  Dillmann, 
whose  eminence  in  Hebrew  scholarship  and  special  familiarity  with  the  Levitical 
legislation  entitle  his  opinion  to  respectful  attention,  Bredenkamp,  Oesetz  u. 
Fropheten,  1880,  and  Delitzsch  in  a  series  of  articles  in  Luthardt'sZe/tscArZ/Y,  1880.  In 
America  the  work  of  Prof.  Curtiss  on  The  Levitical  Priests,  1877,  is  directed  against 
the  Graf- Wellhausen  theory  on  the  single  point  that  previous  to  the  exile  the 
priesthood  was  not  confined  to  the  family  of  Aaron,  and  that  all  Levites  might  be 
priests  ;  Prof.  Green  of  Princeton,  in  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  1883,  has  examined 
the  views  of  Prof.  Smith  and  Kuenen,  and  assigned  his  reasons  for  rejecting  them, 
which  has  also  been  done  by  writers  in  the  Presbyterian  Revieto  and  other  quarter- 
lies. Conf.  also  the  art.  '■'■Pentateuch''''  by  Strack  in  the  2d  ed.  of  Herzog,  Real- 
Encykhp.  Particular  points  in  this  controversy  will  be  found  discussed  in  the 
notes  of  this  edition  of  Oehler.  It  can  only  here  be  said  that  the  theory  of  de- 
velopment applied  to  the  Old  Testament  in  the  central  proposition  that  tlie  ritual 
law  or  Levitical  legislation  is  the  latest  product  of  the  Old  Testament  develop- 
ment and  belongs  to  tlie  period  of  the  second  temple,  while  ardently  embraced  by 
some  in  Germany  and  elsewhere,  is  regarded  by  most  scholars  as  wholly  un- 
supported l)y  facts,  and  as  requiring  too  many  assumptions  to  render  it  worthy  of 
acceptance. — D.] 

(3)  This  is  especially  true  of  the  celebrated  book  of  the  Son  of  Sirach,  which, 
to  mention  only  a  single  point,  presses  the  Pentateuchal  doctrine  of  retribution  to 
an  offensive  Eudsemonism,  without  any  consideration  of  the  features  through 
which  the  Old  Testament  itself  breaks  through  the  externalism  of  the  doctrine  of 
retribution.  (See  my  remarks  on  the  theological  character  of  the  book  in  the 
article,  "  Psedagogik  des  A.  T.,"  in  Schmid's  Patdagog.  Encyhlop.  V.  p.  694  f.). 
The  same  thing  is  true  of  the  book  of  Wisdom,  the  most  beautiful  and  excellent 
of  the  books  of  the  Apocrypha.  The  ideas  of  the  Greek  philosophy  are  united 
in  it  with  Old  Testament  doctrine,  without  any  organic  union  of  these  elements. 
A  tendency  to  syncretism  [a  mingling  of  ideas  from  other  religions]  is  character' 


§    5.]      VIEW    OF   O.  T.   RELIGION    PROPER   TO    CHRISTIAN   THEOLOGY.       13 

istic  of  the  later  Jewish  theology  ;  whereas,  in  the  development  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment religion  presented  in  the  canonical  writings,  the  fundamental  principle  of 
the  latter  has  force  sufficient  to  subdue  and  assimilate  the  foreign  elements  which 
are  taken  up.  This  may  be  seen  especially  in  the  traditions  of  Genesis  and  the 
institutions  of  the  Mosaic  worship,  and  also  in  doctrines  of  the  later  books,  such 
as  the  doctrine  of  Satan  and  the  Angels,  if  we  assume  in  these  cases,  as  is  gener- 
ally done,  the  presence  of  a  foreign  influence. 

(4)  No  settled  types  of  doctrine  are  found  in  the  Old  Testament  Apocrypha. 
A  thorough  statement  of  the  doctrinal  system  of  the  Book  of  Wisdom  would 
bring  us  to  the  discussion  of  Jewish  Alexandrinism.  If  the  historical  influence 
of  the  forms  of  post-canonical  Judaism  on  the  development  of  Ohristian  doctrine 
were  attempted,  we  should  have  to  take  up,  along  with  the  history  of  the  Jew- 
ish Alexandrian  philosophy  of  religion,  the  no  Lss  interesting  and  important  his- 
tory of  the  Jewish  Apocnlyjytic  books,  the  book  of  Enoch,  the  fourth  book  of  Ezra, 
and  the  Psalter  of  Solomon  ;  and  further  still,  the  Jewish  religious  sects,  and  the 
earlier  Rabbinic  theology  found  in  the  older  Targums  and  Midrashim,  as  well  as 
in  the  Mishna,  etc.,  would  have  to  be  discussed,  as  is  done  in  the  treatises  of  De 
Wette  and  von  Colin.  Instead  of  burdening  the  Old  Testament  with  such  bal- 
last, it  will  be  more  proper  to  refer  the  delineation  of  post-canonical  Judaism  to 
a  special  theological  science  to  which  Schneckenburger  (in  the  lectures  published 
by  Loehlein,  1862)  has  given  the  name  of  the  History  of  the  Times  of  the  New 
Testament.  [Since  Schneckenburger,  the  same  subject  has  been  treated  by 
several  writers — by  Holtzmann,  Hausrath,  and  finally  by  Schurer,  Lehrbuch  der 
Neutestameiitlicheii  Zeitgeschichte,  Leipzig,  1874. — Eng.  Ed.] 


II.— FULLER  STATEMENT  OF  THE  SCIENTIFIC  STANDPOINT  OF  OLD 
TESTAMENT  THEOLOGY. 

§5. 

THE   VIEW   OP   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT   RELIGION    PROPER   TO   CHRISTIAN     THEOLOGY. 

The  Christian  theological  standpoint  for  the  theology  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
already  expressed  in  its  name,  by  virtue  of  which  it  does  not  treat  its  subject  as 
the  Jewish  religion,  but  as  the  divine  revelation  of  the  Old  Covenant,  which  on  the 
one  hand  is  fundamentally  different  from  all  heathen  religions,  and  on  the  other 
forms  the  preliminary  stage  to  the  revelation  of  the  New  Covenant,  which  is  with 
it  comprehended  in  one  divine  economy  of  salv^ation  (1).  Since  the  definition  of 
Old  Testament  revelation  will  be  discussed  more  fully  further  on  (comp.  §  55  if.), 
only  the  more  general  propositions  will  here  be  stated. 

(1)  That  view  of  the  Old  Testament  which  is  now  prominent  in  claiming  that 
it  seeks  to  understand  the  Old  Testament  historically,  and  yet  at  the  same  time 
to  be  just  to  its  religious  value,  amounts  essentially  to  this  :  that  Israel,  by  virtue 
of  a  certain  genius  for  religion  rooted  in  the  natural  peculiarity  of  the  Semitic 
race,  was  more  successful  in  the  search  after  the  true  religion  than  the  other 
nations  of  antiquity,  and  soared  higher  than  the  rest  tow^ard  the  purest  divine 
thoughts  and  endeavors.  As  the  Greeks  in  the  ancient  world  were  the  people  of 
art  and  philosophy,  and  the  Romans  the  people  of  law,  so  the  people  of  religion 
/car'  k^oxTjv  sprang  by  natural  growth  from  the  Semitic  stem.  While  it  pleased 
the  earlier  rationalists  to  reduce  the  contents  of  the  Old  Testament  as  much  as 
possible  to  things  of  little  value,  and  then  to  condemn  the  whole  as  Jewish 
national  delusion,  this  newer  view,  whose  principal   representative  is  Ewald, 


14  INTRODUCTION.  [§    G. 

fully  recognizes  the  depth  of  thought  und  moral  loftiness  of  the  Old  Testa' 
ment  ;  indeed,  it  finds  there  already,  more  or  less  distinctly  expressed,  the  eter- 
nal truths  which  Christianity  subsequently  placed  in  full  light.  [As  Dornei" 
{Hid.  of  Prot.  Theology,  ii.  Am)  sharply  states  it  :  He  suppresses  all  that  is  new  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  makes  it  nothing  more  than  a  purified  Judaism. — D.] 

Yet,  although  individual  contributions  made  to  the  matter  of  Old  Testament 
theology  from  this  standpoint  have  great  value,  the  Old  Testament  can  never  be 
historically  understood  in  this  way.  Does  even  a  single  page  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment agree  with  this  view,  by  which  Israel  is  represented  as  a  people  of  such 
genius  in  the  production  of  religious  thought,  and  the  Old  Testament  religion  as 
a  natural  product  of  the  Israelitish  spirit  ?  All  that  the  Bible  recognizes  is  the 
decided  opposit.ion  in  which  the  Old  Testament  religion  stood  from  the  very 
beginning  to  all  that  Israel  had  sought  and  found  in  the  path  of  nature.  And 
how  this  view  fails  to  recognize  the  difficulty  of  the  divine  tuition  expressed  in 
Isa.  xliii.  24:  "Thou  hast  made  me  /«?wr  with  thy  sins,  thou  hast  ■wearied  me 
with  thine  iniquities."  In  Jer.  ii.  10  f.  we  find  Israel's  position  toward  revela- 
tion distinctly  characterized.  When  it  is  there  said,  "  Pass  over  to  the  isles  of 
Chittim,  and  see  ;  and  send  unto  Kedar,  and  consider  diligently,  and  see  if  there 
be  such  a  thing  :  Hath  a  nation  changed  its  gods,  which  are  yet  no  gods  ?  but 
my  people  have  changed  their  glory  for  that  which  doth  not  profit,"  this  charge 
becomes  Intelligible,  if  we  remember  that  the  gods  of  the  heathens  were  a  pro- 
duction of  the  natural  national  mind,  but  not  so  the  God  of  Israel.  And  there- 
fore the  heathen  nations  do  not  exchange  their  gods — so  long,  that  is,  as  their 
religions  thus  originated  have  power  to  develop  organically  ;  but  Israel  had  to 
exercise  on  itself  a  certain  compulsion  in  order  to  rise  to  the  sphere  of  the  spirit- 
ual Jeliovah-worship,  and  therefore  it  sought  after  the  gods  of  the  heathen — this 
borrowing  from  other  religions,  in  fact,  being  characteristic  of  Israel,  so  far  as  it 
was  not  subject  to  revelation. 

The  entire  Old  Testament  remains  a  sealed  book,  if  we  fail  to  see  that  the  sub- 
duing of  the  natural  character  of  the  people  is  the  whole  aim  of  the  divine  tui- 
tion, and  that  therefore  the  whole  providential  guidance  of  the  nation  moves  in 
this  antagonism.  [From  the  point  of  view  here  controverted,  the  objection  might 
arise  that  as  in  every  department  of  mental  activity  the  mass  of  the  people  occu- 
py a  lower  position  than  that  of  the  more  gifted  intellects,  while  yet  we  re- 
gard the  latter  as  the  highest  development  of  a  nation's  mind  (the  Greek 
philosophy,  for  example,  as  a  production  of  the  Greek  national  mind),  so  the 
loftiest  religious  teachings  found  in  the  prophets  may  be  regarded  as  the  highest 
development  of  the  Israelitish  national  mind.  This  objection  would  hold  good, 
if  the  struggle  which  goes  through  the  whole  history  of  Israel,  between  what  Israel 
should  be  and  what  it  was,  had  respect  only  to  such  an  antagonism  as  we  find, 
for  instance,  in  the  reproof  in  Is.  i.  or  subsequently  between  John  the  Baptist 
and  the  Pharisees.  But  the  antagonism  which  really  appears  is  one  entirely  dif- 
ferent. The  struggle  maintained  i)y  Moses  and  the  prophets  is  not  a  struggle  on 
the  part  of  those  who  have  embraced  the  religious  principle  in  its  purity  and 
truth,  against  the  mass  who  stand  upon  a  lower  plane  and  are  under  the  influence 
of  sense,  but  it  is  a  struggle  of  men  who  remain  true  to  the  God  who  has  re- 
vealed himself  to  their  fathers,  against  the  mass  who  have  apostatized  to  strange 
gods  and  to  strange  religions.  Not  bondage  to  sense  but  unfaithfulness  is  the 
charge  against  the  people  made  by  the  true  servants  of  Jehovah.] 

§G. 

THE    BIBLICAL    IDEA    OF   KEVKLATION.       I.    GENERAL   AND    SPECIAL    KEVELATION. 

The  Biblical  idea  of  revelation  has  its  root  in  the  idea  of  Creation.  Revelation  is 
the  development  of  the  relation  in  which  God  has  placed  Himself  to  the  world  in 
bringing  it  into  existence.     The  basis  of  revelation  is  laid  in  the  fact  that  the 


§    6.]  THE    BIBLICAL   IDEA    OF    REVELATION.  15 

world  was  called  into  existence  by  the  word  of  God,  and  was  animated  by  His 
Spirit.  The  production  of  different  classes  of  beings  advances  teleologically, 
and  reaches  its  goal  only  when  God  has  created  man  in  His  own  image.  In  this 
progression  the  foundation  of  revelation  is  laid.  For  revelation  is,  in  general, 
OoiV s  icitness  and  communication  of  Himself  to  the  xoorldfor  the  realization  of  the 
end  of  creation,  and  for  the  re-establishment  of  the  full  communion  of  man  with 
God.  After  the  tearing  asunder  through  sin  of  the  bond  of  the  original  com- 
munion of  man  with  God,  God  testifies,  partly  in  natui\.  and  the  historical  guid- 
ance of  mankind,  and  partly  in  each  one's  conscience,  of  His  power,  goodness, 
and  justice,  and  thus  draws  man  to  seek  God  ;  comp.  how  the  Old  Testament 
points  to  this  witness  of  God,  which  is  perceptible  even  to  the  heathen,  in  Isa. 
xl.  al-26  ;  Jer.  x.;  Ps,  xix.  2  if.,  xciv.  8-10  (1).  The  outer  and  inner  foims  of 
this  universal  revelation  stand  in  a  continual  relation  of  reciprocity,  since  man's 
inward  experience  of  the  divine  testimony  is  awakened  through  the  objective 
outward  witness  of  God  ;  but  this  outward  witness  is  first  understood  by  the  in- 
ward (see  Acts  xvii.  28,  in  its  relation  to  ver.  27).  Yet  the  personal  communion 
of  man  with  God,  as  demanded  by  his  ideal  constitution,  is  not  recovered  by 
means  of  this  general  revelation.  The  living  God  remains  to  the  natural  man, 
in  all  his  searchings,  a  hidden  God  (comp.  Isa.  xlv.  15  ;  Jer.  xxiii.  18  ;  John  i.  18). 
The  knowledge  of  His  a'L&ioq  6vva/xcc  kuI  0Ei6T?/g  does  not  in  fact  lead  to  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  true  and  living  God,  nor  does  the  testimony  of  conscience  that  we 
are  bound  to  Him  produce  a  personal  vital  communion  with  Him.  Nay,  con- 
science rather  testifies  to  man  of  his  separation  from  God,  and  that  he  has  dis- 
owned the  being  of  God  attested  to  him  in  nature  and  history  ;  whence  the  Old 
Testament  calls  the  heathen  "those  that  forget  God,"  Ps.  ix.  18  (2).  It  is  only  by 
God's  stooping  toman  in  personal  testimony  to  Himself,  and  by  the  objective  pres- 
entation of  Himself,  that  a  vital  communion  is  actually  established  between  Him 
and  man.  This  is  the  special  revelation  (3),  which  first  appears  in  the  form  of  a 
covenant  between  God  and  a  chosen  race,  and  the  founding  of  a  kingdom  of 
God  among  the  latter,  culminates  in  the  manifestation  of  God  in  the  flesh, 
advances  from  this  point  to  the  gathering  of  a  people  of  God  in  all  nations,  and 
is  completed  in  the  making  of  a  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth  (Isa.  Ixv.  17,  Ixvi. 
22  ;  Pvev.  xxi.  1  ff.),  where  God  shall  be  all  in  all  (1  Cor.  xv.  28).  The  relation 
between  general  and  special  revelation  is  such,  that  the  former  is  the  continual 
basis  of  the  latter,  the  latter  the  aim  and  completion  of  the  former,  as,  according ' 
to  the  Old  Testament  view,  the  covenant  in  the  theocracy  is  presupposed  in  the 
worldwide  covenant  with  Noah.  As  in  nature  each  realm  has  its  own  laws,  and 
yet  the  several  realms  stand  in  inseparable  connection,  since  the  lower  steps  always 
form  a  basis  for  the  higher,  and  the  higher  a  continuation  and  completion  of  the 
lower,  so  the  general  and  special  revelations,  the  order  of  nature  and  of  salvation 
in  the  system  of  the  world,  are  knit  together  in  organic  unity,  as,  according  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament,  the  Logos  is  the  Mediator  of  both  (4). 

(1)  What  is  called  t\\Q  j)hysirj)-theological,  the  moral  evidence  of  God's  existence, 
etc.,  is  repeatedly  presented  in  the  Oid  Testament  in  a  popular  form  ;  it  occurs 
in  the  protest  of  the  prophets  against  heathenism.  Comp.  Isa.  xl.  21-26  :  "  Do 
ye  not  know  ?  do  ye  not  hear  ?  hath  it  not  been  told  you  from  the  beginning  ? 
have  ye  no  understanding  of  the  founding  of  the  earth  ?     He  that  sits  enthroned 


16  INTRODUCTlOIf.  [§    6. 

over  the  circle  of  the  earth  .  .  .  tliatstretcheth  out  the  heavens  as  a  curtain  .  .  . 
that  bringeth  the  princes  to  nothing,  and  maketh  the  judges  of  the  earth  like  a 
waste,"  etc.  Ver.  2(5  points  to  the  starry  sky.  Jer.  x.  brings  to  mind  the  living 
God  who  rules  in  the  universe.  Ps.  xix.  2  11.  shows  specially  how  God  has 
revealed  His  splendor  and  order-establishing  sway  in  the  sun  and  its  course.  Ps. 
xciv.  9  presents  the  argument  :  "He  who  jjlants  the  ear,  shall  He  not  hear  ?  fie 
who  formed  tiie  eye,  sliall  not  He  see  ?"  This  verse  admits  of  no  difference  of 
exposition.  Tiie  thought  is  this  :  the  Creator  of  hearing  and  sight  must  Him- 
self have  an  analogous  knowledge — must  be  a  living  God,  who  sees  all  things, 
and  hears  [)rayer.  Ver.  10,  "  He  wlio  chastises  the  nations,  shall  not  He  punish, 
He,  who  teaclies  man  knowledge?"  is  often  explained  thus:  He  who  punishes 
the  nations  in  general,  shall  not  Ho  also  punish  in  the  actual  case  which  is 
before  us  ?  To  me,  tlie  exposition  of  Hupfeld  and  Hitzig  appears  to  be  more  cor- 
rect, according  to  which  the  D^IJ  "l?'  refers  to  divine  correction  in  man's  con- 
science. Then  we  get  a  good  parallelism  to  the  second  member.  The  verse  is 
thus  a  reference  to  the  revelation  of  God  in  man's  conscience  and  reason  :  He 
who  has  given  conscience  and  reason.  He  who  proclaims  Himself  in  them  to  be  a 
God  of  retribution,  should  He  not  also  proclaim  Himself  so  in  reality,  in  His 
providences  toward  the  nations  ? 

(2)  The  expression  D'h'^X  Tl-?"^,  Ps.  ix.  18,  is  not,  with  Umbreit,  to  be  con- 
nected directly  with  the  forgetting  of  a  purer  ancient  religion,  but  with  the  for- 
getting and  denying  of  God's  testimony,  as  it  comes  continually  to  the  D'Ij  them- 
selves. 

(3)  In  treating  of  special  revelation,  we  meet  one  prominent  point  of  difference 
between  the  biblical  idea  of  revelation  and  the  idea  usually  developed  in  the 
so-called  Vermittelangstheologie  (comp.  Schultz's  Old  Testament  Theol.).  This 
school  limits  the  idea  of  revelation  as  much  as  po<5sible  to  the  inner  life  of  man  ; 
revelation  is  made  to  consist  essentially'  in  a  divine  "  self-communication  through 
men  inspired  of  God."  Kevelation  operates  by  working  in  the  heart  of  man 
"  an  immediate  certainty  of  divine  life"  (s.  Schultz,  p.  Gl,  and  my  review  in 
Zoeckler  und  Andreie,  Allg.  literar.  Anzeiger,  1870,  p.  101  f.).  The  objective  facts 
are  not  entirely  denied  ;  it  is  not  denied  that  events  did  occur  in  the  history  of 
the  Israelites  to  which  that  inward  self-communication  of  God  to  the  prophets 
(of  whom  Moses  may  bo  regarded  as  tiie  first)  attaches  itself.  But  the  objective 
personal  self-presentation  of  God  which  the  Bible  undoubtedly  asserts  is^  not 
admitted,  for  fear  of  too  dangerous  an  approach  to  the  sphere  of  the  miraculous, 
or  else  it  is  spoken  of  in  a  very  indeiiuite  way.  [Gomp.  the  chapter  on  Moses  in 
Schultz,  especially  p.  129  ff.  j  But  [to  tliis  it  may  be  answered]  if  revelation  is  at 
bottom  only  God's  conuuunication  of  Himself  throuuli  inspired  men,  if  it  acts 
only  to  awaken  in  the  mind  of  ccrtiin  chosen  men  an  immediate  certainty  of  the 
divine  existence,  no  specific  difference  between  a  })rophet  and  a  heathen  sage 
can  be  made  out  ;  for  even  in  the  heathen  an  inmiediate  certainty  of  the  divine 
existence  existed.  In  ord(  r  that  such  a  relation  of  personal  communion  between 
God  and  mm  as  the  idea  of  humanity  requires  may  exist,  we  must  have  that 
objective  presentation  of  Himself  by  God  which  is  pointed  out  in  the  word, 
"  Here  am  I,"  Isa.  lii.  0,  Ixv.  1. 

Luther,  for  example,  luis  with  reason,  in  his  commentary  on  Ps.  xviii.  {Exc- 
getica  opera  latina,  Eri.  Ausg.  xvi.  p.  71),  ])ointed  out  how,  from  the  beginning, 
the  divine  government  aimed  at  binding  tlie  rev^elation  of  God  to  a  given  object  : 
"  Voluit  enim  dominus  et  ab  initio  sem|)er  id  curavit,  ut  csset  aliquyd  mouumen- 
tum  et  signum  memoriale  externum,  quo  alligaret  tidem  credentium  in  sc,  ne  ad- 
ducerentur  variis  et  peregrinis  fervoril)Us  in  spoiitaneasreligiones  seu  potius  idolo- 
latrias."  Divine  revelation  must  enter  tlie  world  as  a  proclamation,  in  which 
the  personality  of  God  as  sucli  mee  s  man,  not  as  an  inexpressible  numen  or 
Divinity,  but  as  God  Himself.  When  that  is  made  clear  to  us,  we  discern  the 
educational  character  of  the  divine  f(U-ms  of  revelation.  To  mankind  in  its 
childhood  God's  existence  must  be  tauglit  in  lheu[)hany  f.oni  without,  and  iheu 


§    7.]       HISTORICAL   CHARACTER    AND    PROGRESS    OF    REVELATION.  17 

from  that  point  revelation  advances  toward  the  manifestation  of  the  reality  of 
this  God  in  the  spirit  (comp.  §  55). 

(4)  If  an  older  supernatiirnlistic  view  places  revelation  in  the  more  restricted 
sense  in  direct  opposition  to  the  order  of  nature,  and  represents  special  revela- 
tion as  entering  into  the  world  as  a  Deus  ex  machina,  this  is  in  nowise  the  bibli- 
cal view. 

\ 

§7. 

II.  HISTORICAL    CHARACTER   AND    GRADUAL    PROGRESS   OP   REVELATION.       ITS  RELA- 
TION  TO   THE    WHOLE   OP    MAN'S   LIFE. 

Its  Siqiernatural  Character. 

According  to  this,  the  special  revelation  of  God,  since  it  enters  the  sphere  of 
human  life,  observes  tlie  laws  of  historical  development  which  are  grounded  in  the 
general  divine  system  of  the  world.  It  does  not  at  a  bound  enter  the  world  all 
finished  and  complete  ;  but  from  a  limited  and  relatively  incomplete  begin- 
ning, confining  itself  to  one  separate  people  and  race,  it  advances  to  its  com- 
pletion in  Christ  in  a  gradual  manner  corresponding  to  the  natural  development 
of  mankind,  and  guides  that  development  into  the  path  of  the  divine  order  of 
salvation,  so  as  to  communicate  to  man,  by  an  historical  process,  the  fulness  of 
God  which  Christ  bears  in  Himself.  And  because  revelation  aims  at  the  restora- 
tion of  full  communion  between  God  and  man,  it  is  directed  to  the  whale  of  man'' s 
life.  It  does  not  complete  its  work  by  operating  either  exclusively  or  mainly 
upon  man's  faculties  of  knowledge  ;  but  constantly  advancing,  it  produces  and 
shajies  the  communion  of  God  and  man,  as  well  by  divine  witness  in  word  as  by 
manifestations  of  God  in  the  visible  world,  the  institution  of  a  commonwealth  and 
its  regulations,  revelations  of  God  witliin,  the  sending  of  the  Spirit,  and  spirit- 
ual awakenings  ;  and  all  this  so  that  a  constant  relation  exists  heticeen  the  revealing 
history  of  salvation  and  the  revealing  word,  inasmuch  as  each  divine  fact  is  preceded 
by  the  word  which  discloses  the  counsel  of  God  (Amos  iii.  7)  now  to  be  com- 
pleted ;  and  again,  the  word  of  God  arises  from  the  completed  fact,  and  testifies 
thereto  (1).  In  these  operations  revelation  makes  itself  known  as  differing  from 
the  natural  revelations  of  the  human  mind,  not  only  by  the  continuity  and  the  or- 
ganic connection  of  the  facts  which  constitiite  the  history  of  salvation,  but  also  in  its 
special  character  {miracle),  which  points  distinctly  to  a  divine  causality.  It  is  rec- 
ognized by  the  organs  of  revelation  themselves  through  a  special  influence  of  the 
Spirit,  of  which  they  are  conscious  as  a  divine  inspiration,  and  finally,  by  all  who 
in  faith  accept  revelation,  through  their  own  experience  of  salvation  (2). 

(1)  Biblical  revelation,  as  here  defined,  is  distinguished  from  the  view  of  the 
older  Protestant  theology  in  two  respects.  On  the  old  view,  revelation  was 
essentially,  and  almost  exclusively,  regarded  as  doctrine.  In  other  words,  what 
was  urged  was  chiefly  the  influence  of  God  on  human  knowledge — a  defect 
which  appeared  still  more  one-sidedly  in  the  older  supernaturalism,  which 
regarded  revelation  as  concerned  with  the  communication  of  a  higher  knowledge, 
which  human  reason  either  would  not  have  found  at  all,  or,  as  the  rationalistic 
supernaturalism  teaches,  at  least  not  so  soon  nor  so  perfectly.  But  if  this  was 
all,  it  would  in  fact  have  been  better  if  it  had  pleased  God  to  send  directly  from 
heaven  a  ready-made  system  of  doctrine.  This  is,  as  is  well  known,  the  Moham- 
medan idea  of  revelation.     And  what  need  was  there  of  this  vast  historical  ap- 


18  iKTRODUCTION.  [§   8. 

paratus  in  onlor  simply  to  l)ring  to  tlio  world  a  diviue  doctrine  wliich  was  then 
to  be  accredited  by  the  facts  of  revelation?  The  second  point  in  -which  the 
older  view  of  revelation  was  unjust  to  the  biblical  one,  was  the  failure  to  recoja^- 
nize  tlie  (jradnal  decelopmeiit  whicli  revelation  passes  through  in  the  Scripture 
itself.  The  Bible,  as  the  record  of  the  teachings  of  revelation,  was  supposed  to 
attest  equally,  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  the  truths  which  the  Church  has 
accepted  as  doctrines  ;  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  for  example,  was  found  in  the 
Old  Testament. 

If  we  look  into  the  Scriptures,  we  see  that,  without  doubt,  revelation  has  to  do 
with  an  influence  on  man's  knowledge,  but  not  this  exclusively,  and  never  so  as  to 
make  this  stand  in  the  foreground.  A  people  of  God  is  to  be  created  from  our 
sinful  race  ;  a  community  having  in  itself  divine  life  is  to  be  planted,  and  man- 
kind thus  to  be  transformed  into  a  kingdom  of  God,  a  tabernacle  of  God  among 
men  (Rev.  xxi.).  Revelation,  then,  cannot  possibly  confine  itself  to  the  cognitive 
side  of  man.  Biblical  Theology  must  be  a  theology  of  divine/acfsy  Bot,  indeed, 
in  the  limited  view  which  has  been  taken  (comp.  Ad.  Koehler's  paper  in  Ullmann's 
Stud.  XI.  Krit.  1852,  p.  875  ff.),  as  if  the  work  of  revelation  simply  consisted  in 
divine  acts  and  then  all  knowledge  originated  merely  through  reflection  on  the 
facts  of  revelation  ; — on  a  similarly  limited  view  of  Hofraann,  in  his  Weissagung 
und  Erfallung,  comp.  §  14.  The  matter  stands  thus  :  between  the  facts  or  the 
history  of  revelation  on  one  side  and  the  testimony  of  the  divine  word  on  the  other, 
?kmtitaal  correfipondence  exists  :  for  example,  the  flood  is  announced  as  a  divine 
judgment — the  threatening  word  precedes  it  ;  and  then,  after  the  fact  has  taken 
place,  a  further  word  of  God  grows  from  it.  This  goes  on  down  to  the  resurrec- 
tion of  our  Lord. — Amos  iii.  7  :  "  The  Lord  Jehovah  does  nothing  without  re- 
vealing His  secret  to  His  servants  the  prophets."  This  passage  points  to  the  close 
connection  of  the  words  and  facts  of  divine  revelation. 

(3)  The  true  definition  of  miracle  and  inspiration  will  be  discussed  further  on. 
— The  living  experience  of  salvation  is  indeed  first  found  complete  on  the  basis  of 
the  New  Testament  revelation.  It  is  there  the  testimony  of  the  new  creature,  who 
knows  that  what  he  owes  to  the  word  of  God  differs  specifically  from  that  which 
he  could  have  found  in  the  path  of  nature.  But  in  the  Old  Testament  also  there 
lies  a  mighty  witness  in  the  passage,  "  Who  is  a  God  like  unto  Thee  ?"  (Ex.  xv. 
11),  as  well  as  in  the  acknowledgment  that  Israel  had  a  law  such  as  no  other 
people  on  earth  had  (Deut.  iv.  6-8  ;  Ps.  cxlvii.  19  f.,  etc.). 

§8. 

III.    THE    OLD   AND   NEW   TESTAMENTS    IN     THEIR    KELATION   TO    HEATHENISM   AND 

TO   EACH   OTHER. 

Revelation  falls  into  two  principal  divisions,  the  Old  and  the  JVeio  Testaments, 
which  stand  to  each  other  in  the  relation  of  preparation  and  fulfilment,  and  are 
thus,  as  a  connected  dispensation  of  salvation,  distinguished  from  all  other  relig- 
ions. Comp.  specially  Eph.  ii.  12  (1).  The  law  and  the  prophets  are  ful filled  in 
Christianity  ;  while,  on  the  contrary,  the  heathen  religions  are  not  fulfilled  in 
Christianity,  but  come  to  naught.  It  is  true  that  heathenism  was  a  preparation  for 
Christianity,  not  simply  negatively  by  the  exhaustion  of  the  forms  of  religious  life 
which  it  produced,  and  the  making  felt  the  need  of  salvation,  but  also,  by  bring- 
ing the  intellectual  and  moral  powers  of  the  human  soul  to  a  richer  development, 
it  added  to  the  gospel — which  seeks  to  enlist  in  its  service  all  the  powers  of  man's 
nature — many  homogeneous  elements,  thus  opening  to  the  truth  many  paths 
among  men.  But  heathenism  not  only  lacks  the  series  of  divine  facts  through 
which  the  way  was  prepared  for  the  completion  of  salvation  in  Christ,  and  like- 


§    8.]       THE    O.  AND    N.  T.  IN  THEIR    RELATION  TO    HEATHENISM.  19 

Avise  all  Inoirlcdge  concerning  the  divine  counsel  of  salvation  (comp.  Isa.  xli.  22, 
xliii.  9  flf.,  xliv.  7  ff.,  etc.)  (2);  but  it  has  not  so  much  as  prepared  the  human 
basis  from  -which  the  redemption  of  man  could  historically  proceed.  For,  on  the 
one  hand,  all  heathen  culture,  even  if  capable  of  being  shaped  by  revelation,  is 
yet  no  necessary  condition  for  the  redemptive  operation  of  the  gdt.pel,  1  Cor.  i.  18- 
30  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  heathenism,  which  has  no  knowledge  of  the  holiness 
of  God,  and  so  no  full  idea  of  sin,  but  only  a  keen  sense  of  injustice,  lacks  those 
conditions  under  which  alone  a  sphere  of  life  could  be  generated  which  presented 
a  fit  soil  for  the  founding  of  the  work  of  redemption  (cf .  Rothe's  Theol.  Ethih,  2d 
ed.  ii.  p.  120  ff.)   (3). 

But  the  unity  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  must  not  be  understood  as  identity. 
The  Old  Testament  itself,  while  it  regards  the  decree  of  salvation  revealed  in  it, 
and  the  kingdom  of  God  foimded  thereupon,  as  eternal,  as  extending  to  all  times 
and  to  all  races  of  men  (from  Gen.  xii.  3  onward,  comp.  also  the  parallel  pas- 
sages ;  further,  Isa.  xlv.  23  f.,  liv.  10,  etc.),  acknowledges  that  the  manifestation 
of  God's  kingdom  at  that  time  was  imperfect  and  temporary  ;  for  it  points  forward 
to  a  new  revelation,  in  which  that  which  is  demand^  by  the  letter  of  the  law  and 
signified  by  its  ordinances  shall  become  a  reality  through  divine  communication  of 
life  (comp.  Deut.  xxx.  6);  indeed,  at  the  very  time  in  which  the  old  form  of  the 
theocracy  was  overthrown,  it  predicted  the  new  eternal  covenant  which  God 
would  make  with  His  people  (Jer.  xxxi.  31  ff.)  (4). — But  still  more  distinctly 
does  the  New  Testament  emphasize  the  difference  from  the  Old  which  subsists 
within  the  unity  of  the  two  covenants.  The  eternal  counsel  of  salvation,  although 
announced  by  the  prophets,  is  nevertheless  not  completely  revealed  till  after  its 
actual  realization  (Rom.  xvi.  25  f. ;  1  Pet.  i.  10  ff.  ;  Eph.  i.  9  f.,  iii.  5).  The 
tuition  of  the  law  reached  its  goal  in  the  grace  and  truth  of  Christ  (John  i.  17  ; 
Rom.  X.  4  ;  Gal.  iii.  24  f.).  In  the  saving  benefits  of  the  new  covenant,  the 
shadow  of  the  old  dispensation  passes  into  reality  (Col.  ii.  17  ;  Heb.  x.  1  ff.)  : 
therefore  the  greatest  man  in  the  old  covenant  is  less  than  the  least  in  the  kingdom 
of  Christ  (IVIatt.  xi.  11);  indeed,  the  Old  Testament  teachings  and  institutions, 
divested  of  their  fulfilment  in  Christ,  sink  down  into  poor  and  beggarly  rudiments 
(Gal.  iv.  9)   (5). 

(1)  According  to  Eph.  ii.  12,  the  heathen,  as  aTTTjAXoTptufiivoi  ttjq  ■KoliTEiaq  tov 
'lapaifk,  are  also  S,kvoL  ruv  Stadr/Koii'  rf/c  iTrayyeXiaq.  Israel  has  hope,  the  heathen  are 
ilTTlSa  fifj  exovreg  :  Israel  has  the  living  God,  the  heathen  are  aOeoL  ev  tu  KOGfiu. 

(2)  What  did  heathenism  ever  transmit  to  the  coming  generations  after  its  bloom 
was  dead,  as  the  w^ork  of  its  seers  and  oracles  ?  What  permanent  knowledge  to 
comfort  men  and  inspire  them  with  hope  in  times  of  trouble  ?  The  answer  to 
this  can  only  be,  that  heathen  divination  which  searched  heaven  and  earth  to  find 
signs  of  God's  will,  which  even  knocked  in  its  questionings  at  the  gates  of  the 
kingdom  of  death,  which  listened  for  the  divine  voice  in  the  depth  of  the  human 
breast,  never  gained  a  knowledge  of  the  counsel  of  the  living  God  ;  so  that  the 
old  heathenism  at  the  close  of  its  development  stood  helpless — in  spite  of  all  its 
searching,  possessing  no  key  to  the  understanding  of  God's  ways,  and  no  knowl- 
edge of  the  goal  of  history.  Or  did  not  its  knowledge  of  the  divine  counsel 
take  refuge  in  poetry,  philosophy,  and  political  wisdom,  when  the  mind  of  man 
emancipated  itself  from  the  decaying  power  of  divination  ?  The  idea  of  a  provi- 
dence, of  a  moral  order  of  the  world,  everywhere  appears,  no  doubt,  as  a  witness 
of  the  religious  constitution  of  man  and  the  indestructible  power  of  conscience. 


20  IKTRODtJCTlOK.  [§   8. 

But  with  this  thought  wrestles  the  belief  in  dark  fate  ;  and  this,  as  is  forcibly 
brought  out  by  Wuttke  {OescUchte  des  JIeide?ithums,  i.  p.  98),  is  "  the  evil 
conscience  of  heathenism  continually  admonishing  and  tormenting— the  conscious- 
ness of  guilt  on  the  part  of  the  gods  making  it  more  and  more  evident  that  they 
are  not  what  they  ought  to  be  ;  that  they  are  of  this  world,  wiiile  they  ought  to 
be  a  spiritual  power  over  it,  and  therefore  bear  in  themselves  the  gerni  of 
death."— Whether  destiny  or  virtue  determines  the  world,  or  how  the  operations 
of  both  are  divided,  is  a  riddle  which  ever  turns  up  unsolved,  although  boldly 
answ^ered  now  in  this  way,  now  in  that.  Observe,  for  example,  to  cite  but  a  few 
instances,  how  a  Demosthenes  at  first  testifies  to  the  reign  of  divine  justice  in  the 
history  of  nations  ;  how  he  prophetically  announces  the  fall  of  the  power  which 
rests  on  falsehood  and  perjury  ;  how  he  concedes,  indeed,  that  destiny  deter- 
mines the  issue  of  all  things,  but  holds  its  gifts  of  fortune  possible  only  where 
there  exists  a  moral  claim  on  the  favor  of  the  gods  {Olynth.  ii.  10.  23);  and  how, 
in  the  evening  of  his  life,  he  knows  no  better  explanation  of  the  misfortune  of  his 
people  than  that  the  destiny  of  all  men,  as  it  rules  at  present,  is  hard  and  dread- 
ful, and  that  therefore  even  Athens  must  receive  its  share  of  the  misfortune 
common  to  man,  in  spite  of  its  own  good  fortune  {de  cor.  p.  311).  Or  see  how  a 
Plutarch,  who,  in  his  remarkable  book  on  the  late  execution  of  divine  punishment, 
shows  a  deeper  understanding  of  the  divine  method  of  judgment,  but  acknowl- 
edges in  his  consolatory  epistle  to  Apollonius,  chap.  vi.  ff.,  no  higher  law  for 
human  things  than  the  law  of  change — see  how  he  answers  the  above-mentioned 
question  in  his  treatise  on  the  fate  of  Rome  ;  how  he  seeks  to  comprehend  the 
course  of  the  history  of  the  world  by  the  combination  of  the  two  principles,  des- 
tiny and  virtue.  He  teaches  (chap,  ii.),  that  as  in  the  universe  theSearth  has 
established  itself  gradually  out  of  the  conflict  and  tumult  of  elementary  matter, 
and  has  lent  to  the  other  things  a  firm  position,  so  it  is  with  the  history  of  man. 
The  greatest  kingdoms  in  the  world  were  driven  about  and  came  into  collision 
with  each  other  by  chance,  and  thus  began  a  total  confusion  and  destruction  of 
all  things.  Then  Time,  which  with  the  Godhead  founded  Rome,  mixed  fortune 
and  virtue,  in  order  that,  taking  from  both  what  was  their  own,  it  might  set  up 
for  all  men  a  holy  hearth,  an  abiding  stay  and  eternal  foundation,  an  anchor  for 
things  driven  about  amid  storm  and  waves.  Thus  in  the  Roman  empire  the 
weightiest  matters  attained  stability  and  security  ;  everything  is  in  order,  and 
has  entered  on  an  immovable  orbit  of  government.  [Programm  uber  das 
Verhilltniss  der  alttest.  Prophetic  zto'  lieidniscTien  MantiJc,   1801.  j 

(3)  In  asserting  on  biblical  grounds  the  essential  connection  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  we  stand  in  opposition  to  that  view  of  the  Old  Testament  especially 
which  has  been  advanced  by  Schleiermacher  in  his  Glauhenslehre.  Schleier- 
macher's  position  (§  12)  is  this  :  "  Christianity  stands,  indeed,  in  a  special 
historical  connection  with  Judaism  ;  but  in  respect  to  its  historical  existence  and 
aim,  its  relation  to  Judaism  and  to  heathenism  is  the  same."  The  more  this  view 
of  the  Old  Testament  has  become  prevalent,  as  it  has  in  late  years,  the  more 
necessary  is  it  to  look  at  it  closely.  [Ritschl,  in  his  Christian  Doctrine  of 
Justification,  opposes  it.]  When  Schleiermacher,  in  the  first  place,  bases 
his  proposition  on  the  assertion  that  Judaism  required  to  be  re-fashioned  by 
means  of  non-Jewish  elements  before  Christianity  could  proceed  from  it,  this  is  an 
assertion  in  the  highest  degree  contrary  to  history.  For  to  what  does  Christ 
attach  His  gospel  of  the  kingdom  ?  Is  it  to  Judaism  as  re-shaped  by  Greek 
philosophy  into  Hellenism  ?  or  is  it  not  rather  to  the  law  and  promise  of  the  Old 
Covenant  ?  Even  where  the  New  Testament  comes  into  connection  with  ideas  of 
Alexandrian  Judaism,  as  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  tliere  is  still  an  essential 
difference  between  that  Alexandrian  self-redemption  and  the  Christian  facts  of 
redemption.  This  is  so  clear  and  certain,  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  waste  words 
upon  the  subject.  Rather  we  must  say,  conversely,  that  heathenism,  Itfore 
receivinff  Christianity,  had  to  he  prepared  monotheistically ;  which  was  mainly 
effected  by  that  mission  of  the  Jewish  Diaspora,  which  had  so  great  an  influence 
on  the  Roman  world.     Schleiermacher  is  right  when  he  argues,  in  the  second 


§   8.]  THE   KELATION"   OP   tHE    O.  T.    TO    CHRISTIANITY.  2l 

place,  that  it  is  possible  to  pass  directly  from  heathenism  to  Christianity  without 
passing  through  Judaism  ;  but  it  must  be  remembered,  that  in  heathenism  the 
training  of  the  law  is  partly  supplied  by  conscience  (Ep.  to  the  Romans),  and 
that  even  the  gospel  includes  the  preaching  of  the  law,  when  it  Cvtmmences  with 
the  word  "  Repent."  To  Schleiennacher's  third  objection,  that  though  Christ 
sprang  out  of  Judaism,  yet  many  more  heathens  than  Jews  have  embraced 
Christianity,  we  have  to  say  that  Israel  hardened  its  heart  because  it  had 
from  the  first  a  possession  which  it  deemed  sufficient,  while  in  heathenism  a 
conscious  need  of  salvation  and  a  seeking  after  God  existed. 

Nagelsbach  has  well  pointed  out  {Vorrede  zur  homer.  Theol.,  2d  ed.  p.  xix.) 
how  the  "  seeking  after  God  was  the  living  pulse  in  the  whole  religious  develop- 
ment of  antiquity."  "  But,"  he  continues,  "  it  is  clear  as  can  be,  that  this  seek- 
ing was  much  further  developed  in  the  vague  feeling  of  want  and  a  longing  for 
its  supply,  than  in  the  capacity  to  satisfy  it  by  its  own  power."  The  attempts 
"  to  find  the  real  and  essential  Deity"  failed  altogether.  Schleiermaclier'a 
fourth  argument  is  as  follows  :  What  is  most  valuable  for  the  Christian  use  of  the 
Old  Testament  is  to  be  found  also  in  the  utterances  of  the  nobler  and  purer 
heathenism — for  example,  in  the  Greek  philosophy  (a  view  often  expressed  ;  comp. 
V.  Lasaulx,  Socrates'  Life,  Teaching,  and  Death,  1858);  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
that  is  least  valuable  which  is  most  distinctly  Jewish.  Now  it  is  undoubtedly 
correct  that  much  which  belongs  specifically  to  the  Old  Testament  is  abolished  in 
the  New  Testament.  But  if  we  ask  what  is  specific  and  essential  in  both  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  in  opposition  to  heathenism,  the  answer  is  not  Monotheism  ; 
for  there  is  a  monotheistic  heathenism  as  well,  and  heathenism  wrestles  to  lay 
hold  on  the  Deity  as  a  unity  ;  but  for  the  Old  and  New  Testament  in  opposition 
to  heathenism,  the  common  bond  is,  above  all,  the  knowledge  of  God's  holiness. 
"With  this  it  follows,  as  shown  in  the  text,  that,  because  the  heathen  had  not  the 
knowledge  of  the  divine  holiness,  they  also  had  not  a  complete  sense  of  sin  (comp, 
the  striking  remarks  of  Carl  Ludw.  Roth  in  his  critique  of  Nagelsbach's 
"  Homer.  Theol.,"  Erlanger  Zeitsclirift  far  Protestantismus  und  Kirche,  i.  1841,  p. 
387  ff.).  In  regard  to  the  alleged  expressions  in  agreement  with  Christianity 
which  can  be  traced  in  heathenism,  it  must  be  noticed  that  all  those  dispersed 
rays  of  light  do  not  make  a  sun — that,  with  all  these,  the  conditions  were  not 
given  for  the  founding  of  a  community  of  salvation. 

It  remains  undeniable  that  the  community  which  was  gathered  out  of  Israel 
forms  the  true  root  of  the  Christian  Church  (comp.  Rom.  xi.).  With  good 
reason  has  Steudel  (in  his  Theologie  des  A.  T.  p.  .541)  met  Schleiermacher  with 
the  question,  where  it  could  be  said  to  the  heathen  in  the  same  way  as  to  the 
Jews  :  "  He  is  come,  to  whom  all  the  men  of  God  have  pointed,  and  for  whom 
they  have  waited."     This  is  not  simply  an  external  historical  connection, 

(4)  It  lies  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  that  the  law  at  the  time  in  which  it  was 
given  did  not  present  itself  as  a  law  to  be  abrogated,  for  thereby  the  law  would 
have  weakened  itself.  Certainly  the  Mosaic  regulations  are  given  very  posi- 
tively, as  everlasting  regulations,  from  which  Israel  was  not  to  deviate  ;  but  that 
the  position  of  the  people  toioard  the  law  shall  in  the  future  be  different  from  what 
it  is  in  the  present  time,  is  stated  in  the  Pentateuch  very  distinctly,  viz.,  Deut. 
XXX.  6,  where  it  is  declared,  that  in  the  last  times  God  will  circumcise  the  heart 
of  the  people,  and  so  will  not  meet  them  merely  in  the  way  of  command,  but  will 
awaken  in  them  a  susceptibility  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  law.  Thus  the  germ  of 
the  prophecy  of  a  new  covenant  of  an  essentially  different  character,  as  it  was 
uttered  by  Jeremiah  in  those  very  days  when  the  battlements  of  the  old  city  of 
David  sank  in  the  dust,  lies  already  in  the  Pentateuch. 

(5)  Since  such  a  difference  exists  between  the  Old  and  New  Testaments — a 
difference  which  chiefly  centres  in  the  contrast  between  the  law  and  the  gospel  — 
it  is  to  be  expected  from  the  outset  that  with  this  practical  difference  a  theoretical 
one  must  correspond,  and  that  we  shall  not  find  in  the  Old  Testament  the  meta- 
physical doctrines  of  Christianity.  This  is  the  point  in  which  the  earlier  theology 
erred. 


22  INtRODUCtlOK-.  [§   9. 


in.— HISTORY    OF   THE   CULTIVATION   OF    OLD   TESTAIMENT 
THEOLOGY   IN   THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH  (1). 

§9. 

TnEOLOGICAL   VIKW   OF   THE    OLD   TESTAMENT   IN   THE   EARLT   CHURCH   AND   IN 

THE   MIDDLE   AGES. 

Old  Testament  Theology,  as  an  indci^endent  branch  of  history,  is,  like  Biblical 
Theology  in  general,  a  modern  science.  During  the  whole  development  of  church 
doctrine  down  to  the  Reformation,  and  also  in  the  old  Protestant  theology,  no 
distinct  line  was  drawn  between  the  essential  contents  of  revelation  as  they  are 
laid  down  in  the  Scriptures,  and  the  doctrinal  formulas  elaborated  from  them  ; 
and  still  less  were  the  successive  stages  of  revelation  and  types  of  doctrine  which 
are  presented  in  Scripture  recognized.  While,  on  the  one  hand,  the  early  Church 
succeeded  in  overthrowing  the  heresy  of  Marcion,  which  completely  severed 
Christianity  from  the  Old  Testament  revelation,  it  did  not  avoid  the  opposite 
error  of  confounding  the  two  Testaments.  The  proposition,  Novum  Testamentum 
in  Vetere  latet,  Vetus  Testamentum  in  Novo  jxitet,  which  is  in  itself  correct,  was  so 
perverted  as  to  be  made  to  mean  that  the  whole  of  Christian  theology,  veiled  in- 
deed, but  already  fully  formed,  could  be  shown  to  exist  in  the  Old  Testament  (2). 
Especially  was  this  the  case  in  the  Alexandrian  theology,  which  changed  the 
distinction  between  the  law  and  the  gospel  into  a  mere  difference  of  degree,  and 
attributed  to  the  prophets  in  general  the  same  illumination  as  to  the  apostles  (3). 

But  even  those  doctors  of  the  Church  who,  like  Augustine,  more  correctly 
apprehended  the  distinction  between  the  law  and  the  gospel,  and  the  difference 
of  degree  between  the  revelation  in  the  Old  and  in  the  New  Testament  with 
respect  to  the  benefits  of  salvation,  failed  to  recognize  this  difference  in  theory, 
and,  so  far  as  the  more  enlightened  men  of  the  Old  Testament  are  concerned, 
almost  entirely  abandoned  it  (4).  Still  Augustine's  treatment  of  Old  Testament 
history  in  his  work  de  Civitate  Dei,  lib.  xv,-xvii.,  is  not  without  interest  in  its 
bearing  on  Biblical  Theology  (5).  On  the  other  hand,  the  chronicle  of  Sulpicius 
Severus  (G),  which,  in  the  first  book  and  the  beginning  of  the  second,  discourses 
compendiously  on  the  whole  Old  Testament  history,  is  of  no  importance  to 
Biblical  Tlieology,  though  it  is  not  wanting  in  interest  on  individual  points  (7). 

Still  less  was  the  cultivation  of  Bil)lical  Theology  as  an  historical  science  pos- 
sible under  the  influence  of  the  theology  of  the  middle  ages,  or  at  all  consistent 
with  the  tendencies  pf  that  period.  Even  the  mystical  tendency,  which  went  back 
more  to  the  Bible,  was  deficient  in  sound  hermeneutical  principles,  and  so,  no 
less  than  scholasticism,  did  violence  in  its  speculations  to  the  Scriptures.  Even 
those  who,  like  the  theologians  of  the  School  of  St.  Victor,  had  a  presentiment  of 
a  more  legitimate  treatment  of  ScripUire,  were  unable  to  carry  tlieir  ideas  out  (8). 

(1)  This  survey  of  the  history  of  our  science  will  show  how  far  the  view  of  the 
Old  Testament  which  we  have  presented  in  the  preceding  pages  lias  been  adopted 
by  those  who  have  written  on  Old  Testament  theology.  Comp.  witli  this  my 
ih'olegomena  to  the  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament,  1845  (also  my  article  "  Weissa- 
gung"  in  Ilcrzog's  llcal-Eacyldoj).  xvii.),  and  DienteVs  Uistory  of  the  Old  Testament 


§    9.]      THEOLOGICAL   VIEW   OF  THE   O.  T.   IK   THE   EARLY    CHURCH.        23 

in  the  Christ  km  Church,  Jena,  18G9.  The  very  excellent  work  of  Diestel  not  only 
gives  a  history  of  the  way  in  which  the  Old  Testament  has  been  viewed  and  ex- 
pounded in  Christian  theology,  but  seeks  also  to  point  out  [though  much  more 
l)riefly  than  might  be  supposed  from  Oehler's  statement — D.  J  the  influence  which  the 
Old  Testament  has  exercised  in  the  course  of  centuries  on  the  life  of  the  Cliurch, 
on  its  constitution,  worship  and  doctrine,  and  on  the  arts  and  laws  of  Christian 
nations.  This  attempt  has  succeeded  so  well,  that  we  find  a  tolerably  complete 
mass  of  material  brought  together  in  a  very  instructive  manner.  (See  my  review 
of  the  work  in  Andreae  und  Brachmann,  AUg.  litterur.  Anzeiger,  April,  1869,  p. 
245  ff.) 

(2)  The  earliest  treatment  of  the  Old  Testament,  not  simply  practically,  but 
theologically,  is  found  in  the  New  Testament  :  comp.  especially  the  Epistles  to 
the  Romans,  Galatians,  and  Hebrews.  Tlie  controver)<y  hetwceii  the  young  Christian 
body  and  the  wisdom  of  the  scribes  soon  led  to  biblico-theological  questions,  and 
this  was  continued  between  the  orthodox  Church  teachers  and  the  heretics. 
The  questions  which,  as  we  see  from  Austin  Martyr's  Dialogue  witJi  Tryjjho,  and 
Tertullian's  Answer  to  the  Jews,  were  chiefly  discussed  between  Rabbins  and 
Christian  theologians,  centred  in  Christology.  On  that  topic  we  find  such  ques- 
tions of  debate  as  the  following  :  Does  the  Old  Testament  teach  the  divine  dignity 
of  the  Messiah,  and  does  it  announce  a  TraO?/rbg  XptarSc  ?  In  the  Gnostic  contro- 
versy, the  whole  position  of  Christianity  toward  the  Old  Testament  became  matter 
of  discussion  ;  in  particular,  in  opposition  to  the  Mauicheavs,  the  question  arose, 
which  remains  yet  unsettled,  viz.,  how  it  stands  with  the  Old  Testament  in  rela- 
tion to  the  knowledge  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul  and  eternal  life  (comp.  on 
this  subject  my  Commentationcs  ad  theologinm  lihlicain  jiertinentes,  1846,  p.  2  ff.). 
But  these  questions  were  not  treated  in  the  way  that  is  followed  by  Biblical 
Theology  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word,  in  which  the  historical  interest  is 
dominant,  but  purely  in  the  interests  of  doctrine,  so  that  the  Church  Fathers 
sought  to  point  out  the  Christian  doctrines  as  existing  in  the  Old  Testament  ; 
and  above  all,  their  ignorance  of  the  [Hebrew]  language  hindered  the  doctors  of 
the  Church  from  studying  the  Old  Testament  thoroughly.  [From  this  remark, 
Origen,  Jerome,  and  Ephrem  Syrus  must  be  excepted. — D.] 

(8)  On  the  position  of  the  Alexandrian  school  to  the  Old  Testament,  and  its 
confounding  of  the  two  Testaments,  we  refer  especially  to  the  account  of  Origen 
by  Redepenning,  Origenes,  i.  p.  273  ff.  The  allegorical  interpretation,  which 
he  brought  to  its  perfection,  rendered  Origen  incapable  of  perceiving  in  the  Old 
Testament  a  development  of  doctrine,  and  of  representing  the  historical  progress 
of  revelation  impartially. 

(4)  In  proof  of  this,  comp.  Augustin.  c.  Adim.  cap.  iii.  4  :  "  Certis  quibusdam 
umbris  et  figuris  .  .  .  populus  ille  tenebatur,  qui  Testamentum  Vetus  accepit  : 
tamen  in  eo  tanta  prsedicatio  et  praenunciatio  Novi  Testament!  est,  ut  nulla  (in 
Retract,  i.  22.  2  :  jxmie  nulla)  in  evangelica  atqtie  apostolica  disciplina  reperiantur, 
quamvis  ardua  et  divina  jyrmcepta  et  promissa,  qucB  illis  etiamlihris  veterihus  desint.'''' 

(5)  We  may  regard  these  three  books  in  Augustine's  great  work  as  in  a  certain 
sense  the  first  treatment  of  the  theology  of  the  Old  Testament.  Augustine  (cf. 
I.e.  xxii.  30  fin.;  c.  Faust,  xii.  8)  bases  his  statement  on  the  thought  that  the  his- 
tory of  the  divine  kingdom  is  comprised  in  seven  periods,  of  which  the  week  of 
creation  forms  the  type.  The  first  five  periods  fall  in  the  Old  Testament  times, 
and  are  bounded  by  Noah.  Abraham,  David,  the  Babylonian  captivity,  and  the 
appearing  of  Christ  ;  the  sixth  is  the  present  age  of  the  Church  ;  and  the  Sabbath  of 
the  world  follows  as  the  seventh.  We  shall  see  how,  in  the  Reformed  theology 
at  a  later  period,  this  thought  was  used  in  what  is  called  the  system  of  periods 
(§11). 

(6)  In  connection  with  the  chronicle  of  Sulpicius  Severus,  which  Diestel  has 
singularly  overlooked,  the  essay  of  Bcrnays  deserves  to  be  read  :  "  The  Chronicle 
of  Sulpicius  Severus;  a  contribution  to  the  history  of  classiccd  and  biblical  studies."" 
1861.     The  chronicle  was  written  a  little  after  a.d.  400. 

(7)  The  study  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  ancient  Church  reaches  its  close 


^4  INTllODUCTIOJf*  i§    10. 

with  Gregory  the  Great  ;  but  liis  gigantic  work,  Moralia  in  Johum,  and  his 
other  works  on  tlie  Old  Testament,  are  ixirticularly  important  only  so  far  as  they 
make  us  more  closely  acquainted  with  the  style  of  exegesis  in  the  old  Church._ 

(8)  See  Liebner,  "■  llago  von  St.  Viktor  und  die  theologischen  Eichtungen  seiner 
Zeit,''  1832,  p.  128  ff.— True,  much  detached  matter  valuable  for  the  Old  Testa- 
ment was  brought  to  light  in  the  middle  ages,  and  especially  on  the  Song  of 
Solomon,  in  which  the  mysticism  of  the  middle  ages  lives  and  moves,  as  Bernard 
of  Clairvaux's  lectures  on  Canticles  show  ;  but  this  is  not  anything  belonging  to 
Biblical  Theology.  Nay,  the  simpler  explanations  of  the  Bible  appeared  so 
despicable  to  the  ruling  scholasticism,  that  the  name,  biblical  theologian,  came  to 
mean  the  same  as  a  narrow-minded  person  (see  Liebner,  I.e.  p.  166).  The  Rabbins 
of  the  middle  ages  accomplished  more,  especially  Moses  Maimonides,  who  must 
often  be  consulted  on  Old  Testament  Theology,  particularly  on  the  ordinances 
and  expositions  of  the  Mosaic  law. 

§10. 

THEOLOGICAL  VIEW    OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT   IN   THE    AGE    OF   THE   REFORMATION. 

The  Reformation  principle  of  the  supreme  authority  of  Scripture  drew  the  at- 
tention of  theologians  to  the  Old  Testament  as  well  as  to  the  New.  A  more  lively 
interest  in  it  had  been  already  awakened  by  John  Reuchlin  ;  though  in  the  case  of 
Reuchlin  himself  this  interest  was  directed  less  to  the  simple  theological  meaning  of 
the  Old  Testament,  than  to  the  old  mysterious  learning  it  was  supposed  to  contain. 
Nevertheless  llieronymus  redivivus,  as  Reuchlin  was  called  because  of  his  trilinguis 
eruditio,  rendered  great  service  to  the  "  rise  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,"  not  simply 
by  opening  a  path  for  the  study  of  Hebrew  in  Germany,  but  particularly  by  the 
firmness  with  which  he  lays  it  down  as  the  duty  of  the  expositor  of  Scripture  to 
go  back  to  the  original  text  expounded  according  to  its  literal  sense,  and  to  refuse 
to  be  dependent  on  the  Vulgate,  and  the  traditional  expositions  of  tlie  Church 
which  are  connected  with  it.  Thus  Reuchlin  became  the  father  of  Protestant 
Hermeneutics,  little  as  lie  himself  acknowledged  the  full  range  of  his  principles  (1). 
The  recognition  of  the  difference  between  the  laic  and  the  gospel  derived  from 
Paul's  epistles  was  the  first  thing  that  gave  to  the  Reformers  a  key  to  the  theo- 
logical meaning  of  the  Old  Testament,  since  they  sought  in  the  Scriptures,  not 
theprgic  wisdom,  like  Reuchlin,  but  the  simple  way  of  salvation.  Scholasticism 
had  substituted  for  the  antithesis  of  law  and  gospel  the  difference  between  the 
vetus  and  the  nova  lex;  tlie  former  of  which  demands  only  a  righteousness 
prompted  by  external  motives,  and  therefore  incomplete,  while  the  latter  binds 
to  the  complete  virtue  which  rests  upon  love.  Reformers,  on  the  other  hand, 
brought  into  a  truer  light  the  moral  worth  of  the  Old  Testament  law,  and  the 
corresponding  educatinn;d  aim  of  the  Old  Testament  economy  ;  and  they  also 
correctly  recognized,  that  even  in  the  old  covenant  a  revelation  of  God's  gracious 
will  in  the  promise  of  salvation  goes  side  by  side  with  the  revelation  of  the 
demands  of  (he  divine  will  in  tlie  law  (2).  Of  all  that  is  connected  with  this 
practical  sphere  in  the  Old  Testament,  Luther  especially  shows  a  profound  under- 
standing, springing  from  a  lively  personal  experience  (8).  But  because  the  ex- 
perience of  the  Christian,  even  when  analogous,  is  not  necessarily  identical  with 
that  of  believers  under  the  Old  Testament,  the  practico-theological  exposition 
does  not  do  full  justice  to  the  historical  meaning  of  the  Old  Testament.     The 


§    10.]       THEOLOGICAL   VIEW    OF   THE   O.  T.   AT   THE    KEFORMATION.         25 

fact  that  moral  and  religious  knowledge  was  gradually  deepened  under  the  educa- 
tional guidance  of  the  law,  which  advanced  from  the  external  to  the  internal  ; 
that  the  promise  of  salvation  arose  from  germ-like  beginnings,  and  advanced  step 
by  step  in  connection  with  the  providential  guidance  of  the  history  of  the  people, 
was  all  the  less  recognized,  because  in  the  sphere  of  doctrine  proper  the  two 
Testaments  were  so  closely  blended.  In  the  view  which  the  Reformers  (and 
especially  Melanchthon)  were  fond  of  developing,  that  the  Church  began  in  Para- 
dise and  continues  throughout  all  time,  tlie  whole  emphasis  is  laid  on  the  doctrinal 
unity  of  revelation,  existing  under  all  change  of  outward  forms  (4).  Grace  is 
indeed  multiformis,  adjusting  its  revelation  according  to  the  need  of  different 
times,  and  the  childhood  of  the  human  race  has  special  need  of  simple  speech  and 
story  (5)  ;  but  the  faith  of  the  Old  Testament  saints  in  the  coming  Saviour  is  never- 
theless essentially  one  with  our  faith  in  the  Saviour  who  has  come  (6).  It  is  true 
that  exegesia  had  become  subject  to  the  laws  of  language  ;  the  fourfold  sense  of 
the  scholastics  was  set  aside,  and  the  simple  sensus  literalis  was  pressed  ;  but  the 
second  principle  of  exegesis,  the  analogia  Jidei,  though  then  in  itself  correctly 
understood  as  the  analogia  scriptura — the  rule  that  Scripture  must  be  expounded 
by  Scripture— was  taken  in  the  sense  of  full  doctrinal  agreement  between  the  two 
Testaments  (7).  The  Eefqrmed  Theology,  which  does  not  urge  the  antithesis  of 
the  law  and  the  gospel  in  the  same  way  as  the  Lutheran,  agrees  with  it  entirely 
as  to  the  doctrinal  use  of  the  Old  Testament.  Even  Calvin,  who  really  laid  a 
foundation  for  the  historical  exposition  of  the  Old  Testament,  places  the  differ- 
ence of  the  two  Testaments  mainly  in  the  outward  form,  which  changes  according 
to  the  difference  in  man's  jiowers  of  comjirehension  (8). 

(1)  Most  writers  content  themselves  with  eulogizing  the  service  which  Reuchlin 
rendered  in  laying  the  foundation  for  the  study  of  the  Hebrew  language  in  Ger- 
many.  But  he  is  also  worthy  of  notice  in  a  theological  respect  ;  though  not, 
because  of  his  cabalistic  studies  {De  verho  mirijico,  1494  ;  De  doctrina  cabbalistica, 
1517),  which  were  esteemed  by  himself  as  the  crown  of  knowledge.  The  Re- 
formers indulgently  took  no  notice  of  his  cabalisticism,  though  each  one,  from 
the  sharp  judgment  to  which  Luthor  sul)jects  the  Jewish  "  Alfanzerei"  in  his 
book  on  the  Shem  hani^ phorafth  might  have  his  own  opinion  on  what  Reuchlin 
taught  concerning  "the  miraculous  word."  But  Reuchlin's  immortal  service 
consists  in  this,  that  he  was  the  first  to  claim  with  the  greatest  emphasis  that 
exegesis  should  be  independent  of  tjie  traditions  of  thc_Church,  contained  espe- 
cially in  the  Vulgate  and  the  commentaries  of  Jerome.  From  him  sprang  the 
well-known  sentence  :  ''  Qunmquma  Uieronymum  nandum  veneror  vt  angelum  et 
Lyram  colo  ut  magistrum,  tamen  adoro  veritatem  ut  Diuni^''  (Preface  to  the  third 
book  of  the  Eudimenta  Hehraiai);  and  he  utters  this  principle,  "  Is  est  plane  veins 
et  gerraanus  scripturae  sensus,  quern  nativa  verbi  cujusque  proprietas  expedita 
solet  aperire, "  in  his  book,  De  accentihus  et  orthographia  Ungum  hehvaiccB,  fol.  iii. 
b.  This  important  service  of  Reuchlin  was  also  acknowledged  by  Luther,  when 
he  wrote  to  him,  1518  (Tllustrii/m  inroru^n  epistoUe,  hehraico',  groicm  et  latino,  ad 
Joannem  ReucJiUn,  etc.,  1514  and  1518,  3  b.):  "  Fuisti  tu  sane  organum  consilii 
divini,  sicut  tibi  ipsi  incognitimi,  ita  omnibus  purie  tlieologi;e  studiosis  exspecta- 
tissimum."  Reuchlin  has  also  given  his  opinion  on  the  duty  of  studying  Ihe 
Holy  Scriptures  independently  in  thejr  original  tcxj,  in  his  letters  to  Abbot 
Leonhard  in  Otteubeuern  (s.  Schelhorn's  Aina'nifutes  hist.  eccl.  et  literal',  ii.  p.  593 
ft.).  Among  other  things,  he  writes  :  "  Tantusmihi  est  erga  linguarum  idiomata 
et  proprietatcs  aidor,  ut  non  valde  laborare  ronsueverim  lil^rum  habere  aliquem 
in  alia  lingua,  quam  in    ea,  in  qua  est    couditus    omnium    primo,  semper    ipse 


3G  INTRODUCTIOK.  [§   10. 

timens  de  translatis,  quae  me  sgepe  quondam  errare  fecerunt.  Quare  N.  T.  grsece 
lego,  Vetus  hebraice,  in  cujiis  expositione  malo  confldere  meo  quam  alterius 
ingenio."  It  is  only  too  true  that  Reuchlin  himself  did  not  know  the  sweep  of 
his  own  views  ;  he  was  highly  dissatisfied  even  with  the  Reformation.  For  the 
rest,  comp.  my  biography  of  Reuchlin  in  Schmid's  Encyklop.  des  gesammten 
Erziehvngs-  uud  Unternchtswenetis,  and  my  review  of  Geiger's  paper  on  Melanch- 
thofl's  Oratio  continens  hidoriam  Gapnionis,  1868,  in  the  Zeitschr.  fur  Luther.  Theol. 
1869,  iii.  p.  505  II.;  and  also  of  Geiger's  book,  Jvhann  HeuMin,  his  Life  and 
WorL^,  1871,  in  the  same  Zeitschr.  1872,  i.  p.  145  S.  [also  the  book  itselfj,  and  the 
art.,  lieuchlin  in  Herzog,  Encylc. 

(2)  On  this  subject  compare  the  first  ed.  of  Melanchthon's  ioci,  in  the  Corjius 
Reform.,  ed.  Bretschneider  and  Bindseil,  xxi.  p.  139  ff. 

(3)  What  the  Old  Testament  testifies  of  the  solemnity  of  the  divine  law  and 
divine  judgment,  of  the  curse  of  sin  and  the  wretchedness  of  a  life  without  God, 
and  al.so  of  the  desire  for  forgiveness  of  sins  and  the  purifying  of  the  heart,  and 
of  faith  in  divine  promises,  in  doctrine  and  history,  is  set  forth  by  Luther  with 
much  impressiveness,  especially  in  his  Exposition  of  the  Psalms,  which,  as  the 
"  Patternbook  of  all  Saints,"  depicted  the  history  of  his  own  inward  life. 

(4)  From  Luther,  compare  especially,  with  regard  to  this,  the  exposition  of 
Ps.  xix.  (XX.)  in  the  Exegetica  op}).,  Lat.  ed.,  Erl.,  xvi.  p.  190  f  :  "  Sicut  alia 
persona,  alia  causa,  aliud  tempus,  alius  locus  in  nova  lege  sunt,  ita  et  aliud  sacri- 
ficium,  eadem  tamen  fides  et  idem  spiritus  per  omnia  ssecula,  loca,  opera,  per- 
sonas  manent.  Externa  variant,  interna  mnnent. — Oportetenim  ecclesiam  ab  initio 
mundi  adstare  Christo  circumdatam  varietate,  et  dispensatricem  esse  multiformis 
gratia;  Dei  secundum  diversitatem  membrorum,  temporum,  locorum  et  causarum, 
quse  mutabilia  sint  et  varia,  ipsa  tamen  una  semper  eademque  perseveret  ecclesia. " 
Grace  has  many  forms,  but  the  Church  is  one  ;  and  Luther  would  add.  So  is  also 
Church  doctrine.  Luther  finds  the  doctrine  of  the  OedvOpunoc  even  in  Gen.  iv.  1, 
It  is  remarkable  that,  side  by  side  with  his  free  position  toward  some  of  the  Old 
Testament  writings,  there  is  a  very  decided  strictness  in  regard  to  the  doctrines 
supposed  to  lie  in  the  Old  Testament.  From  Melanchthon,  comp.  Loci,  Corpus 
ref.  xxi.  p.  800  :  "  Una  est  perpetua  ecclesia  Dei  inde  usque  a  creatione  hominis 
et  edita  promissione  post  lapsum  Ada;  ;  sed  doctrinae  propagatio  alias  in  aliis 
politiis  fuit.  Ac  prodest  considerare  seriem  historije,"  etc.; — p.  801  :  "  Nam  ut 
sciremus,  doctrinam  ecclesia;  solam,  primam  et  veram  esse,  Deus  singulari  bene- 
ficio  scribi  perpetuam  historiam  ab  initio  voluit  .  .  ,  et  huic  libro  .  .  .  addidit 
testimonia  editis  ingentibus  miraculis,  ut  sciremus,  unde  et  quomodo  ab  initio 
propagata  sit  ecclesia;  doctrina.''^ 

(5)  Sec  Luther's  preface  to  the  Old  Testament  of  1523,  WorJcs,  Erl.  ed.  Ixiii.  p. 
8  :  "  Here  (in  the  Old  Testament)  shalt  thou  find  the  swaddling-clothes  and  the 
manger  in  which  Clirist  lies.— Poor  and  of  little  value  are  the  swaddling-clothes, 
but  dear  is  Christ,  tlie  treasure  that  lies  in  them." 

(6)  Comp.  Luther  on  Gal.  iv.  2  :  "  (Christus)  patribus  in  V.  T.  in  spiritu 
veniebat,  antequam  in  carne  appareret.  Habebant  illi  in  Spiritu  Christum,  in 
quern  revelandum,  ut  nos  in  jam  revelatum,  credel)ant,  ac  a;que  per  cum  salvati 
sunt  ut  nos,  juxta  illud  :  '  Jesus  Christus  heri  et  hodie  idem  est  et  in  ssecula  ' 
(lleb.  xiii.  8)." 

(7)  On  the  hermeneutical  principles  of  the  Reformation  theology,  we  give  the 
following  additional  details  : — Tlie  principle  that  the  true  meaning  of  each 
scriptural  pa.ssage  is  the  literal  meaning,  was  taken  from  Reuchlin  ;  Luther  had 
spoken  sharply  against  the  making  of  allegories,  and  would  tolerate  allegories  at 
best  only  as  an  ornament  and  setting,  as  he  expressed  it.  To  this  was  added  the 
properly  theological  jirinciple  of  exposition  by  the  anahgiafdri.  This  Protes- 
tant principle  of  the  arudogia  fulei  is  dilTerent  from  that  of  the  ancient  Church.  In 
the  latter,  the  sum  of  the  tradition  of  doctrine  in  the  apostolic  churches  formed 
the  regubi  fidei ;  but  tha  anal/giajidei  oi  the  Reformers  was  to  be  drawn  from 
Holy  Scripture,  and  so  becomes  analogia  scripturce — Scripture  should  be  ex- 
plained by  Scripture.     This  principle  is  in  itself  perfectly  correct  ;  and  to  have 


§  11.  J    CONCEPTION-  OF   O.  T.   IN"   THE   OLDER   PROTESTANT  THEOLOGY.    27 

stated  it,  is  one  of  the  greatest  merits  of  Protestant  theology.  But  it  was  not 
properly  applied  ;  the  unity  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  was  conceived  of 
not  as  produced  by  a  gradually  advancing  process  of  development,  but  as  a 
harmony  of  doctrine.  In  order  to  justify  this,  and  to  be  able  to  show  the  doc- 
trine to  be  really  taught,  it  was  necessary  to  use  a  figurative  exegesis.  This,  as 
every  one  knows,  is  the  kind  of  exegesis  which  takes  the  place  of  allegorizing 
interpretations,  especially  in  the  treatment  of  prophecy.  Compare  Luther's  pref- 
ace to  the  Old  Testament,  Erl.  ed.  Ixiii.  p.  22  :  "  Moses  is  the  fountain  of  all 
wisdom  and  understanding,  out  of  which  welled  all  that  was  known,  and  told  by 
all  the  prophets.  The  New  Testament  also  flows  from  it,  and  is  grounded 
therein. — If  thou  wilt  interpret  well  and  surely,  take  Christ  for  thee  ;  for  He  is 
the  man  to  whom  alone  all  refers.  So,  then,  in  the  high  priest  Aaron  see  no 
one,  but  Christ  alone,''  etc. 

(8)  Calvin  was  so  much  an  historical  expositor  in  his  exposition  of  the  proph- 
ets, that  he  was  reproached  later  by  the  Lutheran  controversialists  as  the  Judaiz- 
ing  Calvin.  But  in  the  doctrinal  treatment  of  the  Old  Testament  he  took  a  posi- 
tion as  rigorous  as  that  of  Luther  and  Melanchthon,  and  indeed  more  so  ;  com- 
pare as  the  principal  passage,  the  Institutio?ies  of  1559,  ii.  chap.  11,  "  de  differ- 
entia unius  testamenti  abaltero,"  §  1  f . :  There  are  indeed  differences  between  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments,  but  they  rather  refer  ad  modum  administratioyiis  than 
ad  substantiam ;  the  temporal  promises  of  the  Old  Testament  are  a  type  of  the 
heavenly  inheritance.  "  Sub  hac  psedagogia  illos  coutinuit  Dominus,  ut  spiritu- 
ales  promissiones  non  ita  nudas  et  apertas  illis  daret,  sed  terrenis  quodammodo 
adumbratas."  Then  it  is  said,  §  13  :  "  In  eo  elucet  Dei  constantia,  quod  eandem 
omnibus  soeculis  doctrinam  tradidit  ;  quem  ab  initio  prajcepit  nominis  sui  cultum, 
in  eo  requirendo  perseverat.  Quod  externam  formam  et  modum  mutavit  in  eo  non 
se  ostendit  mutationi  obnoxium  :  sed  hominum  captui,  qui  'oarius  ac  mutabilis  est, 
eatenus  se  attemperavit. ' ' 

§11. 

THEOLOGICAL   CONCEPTION   OF   THE     OLD     TESTAMENT    IN   THE   OLDER     PROTESTANT 

THEOLOGY. 

The  treatment  of  the  Old  Testament  iu  tlie  older  Protestant  theology  was 
determined  by  the  principles  stated  in  the  last  paragraph.  Because  the  doc- 
trinal system  of  Protestantism  sought  to  support  itself  wholly  on  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Bible,  the  distinction  between  biblical  theology  and  church  doc- 
trines was  not  carried  out  after  the  thread  of  recumenico-catholic  development 
of  doctrine  was  again  taken  up.  The  contents  of  the  Scriptures  were  set 
forth  with  strict  regard  to  the  systematic  doctrines  of  the  Church,  and  with- 
out respect  to  the  historical  manifoldness  of  the  Scriptures  themselves.  The 
Old  Testament  was  used  in  all  its  parts,  just  like  the  New  Testament, 
for  proofs  of  doctrine.  In  opposition  to  the  Romish  theologians, — e.g.  Bel- 
larmin,  who  now  distinguished  the  doctrine  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
as  doctrina  inclwata  and  perfecta,  and  maintained  that  the  mysteries  of  faith,  and 
especially  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  were  only  obscurely  and  imperfectly  con- 
tained in  the  Old  Testament, — it  was  taught  on  the  side  of  the  Protestants,  that, 
in  respect  to  fundameptal  doctrines,  the  Old  Testament  was  in  noway  incomplete, 
and  that  these  were  only  repeated  more  distinctly  in  the  New  Testament  (comp. 
for  the  Lutheran  theology,  Gerhard's  Loci,  ed.  Cotta,  vi.  p.  138  (1);  on  the  Re- 
formed side,  Schweizer,  Beformirte  Glaubenslehre,  i.  p.  213  f.).  This  was  more 
sharply  expressed  ja  the  struggle  against  the  Socinians  ;  and  the  same  point  was 


28  INTKODUCTION-.  [§    H- 

also  in  dispute  in  the  Syncretistlc  controversies.  Among  the  points  which  roused 
the  Lutheran  orthodoxy  against  George  Calixtus,  was  his  denial  of  the  existence 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  first  notable  reaction 
against  the  schohiStic  treatment  of  the  Old  Testament  proceeded  from  the  Re- 
formed theologij,  which  took  a  wider  interest  than  Lutheranisra  in  the  Scriptures 
as  a  whole.  "What  is  called  the  sijstem  of  jjeriods,  and  still  more,  the  Cocceian 
federal  theology,  come  now  into  view  (2),  The  former  was  mamly  grounded  on 
the  Apocalypse,  which  suggested  the  division  of  the  history  of  the  Christian 
Church  into  periods  based  on  the  number  seven,  which  several  times  recurs  in  the 
book.  In  the  Cocceian  school  this  plan  of  division  was  extended  to  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. Cocceius  (born  160:5  in  Bremen,  professor  in  Leyden  1650,  died  1669) 
proceeded  in  his  views  on  biblical  theology  from  the  idea  of  a  twofold  covenant 
between  God  and  man  :  the  first,  the  covenant  of  nature  and  works,  was  made 
with  Adam  in  his  state  of  innocence  ;  the  second,  the  covenant  of  grace  and 
faith,  which  came  in  after  the  fall,  has  three  dispensations — before  the  law, 
under  the  law,  and  under  the  gospel.  Cocceius  has  the  undeniable  merit  of  hav- 
ing energetically  defended  the  theological  study  of  the  Scriptures,  in  op2:)osition 
to  scholasticism  and  the  exegetical  tradition  ruled  by  it,  as  well  as  in  opposition 
to  a  one-sided  philological  exegesis.  Ilis  principles  of  interpretation  also  deserve 
favorable  recognition.  The  literal  meaning  must  be  given  as  exactly  as  possible, 
though  with  careful  attention  to  the  immediate  context  ;  but  since  the  Scripture 
is  an  organism,  the  whole  Scripture  must  always  be  kept  in  mind  in  the  theologi- 
cal explanation  of  each  passage.  The  allegorical  principle  of  interpretation  he 
rejected,  but  held  to  the  typical  teaching  of  the  Old  Testament  concerning  the 
Atonement,  as  distinguished  from  the  atonement  actually  made  as  taught  in  the 
New  Covenant.  Indeed,  it  was  one  of  the  most  controverted  doctrines  of  Coc- 
ceius, that  (comp.  Rom.  iii.  25,  Heb.  ix.  15)  the  Old  Testament  taught  only  a 
ndpeoic  duapriuv,  transmissio  peccatorum,  but  not  a  real  cKpsair.  But  the  way  in 
which  Cocceius  connected  tiie  different  dispensations,  and  confounded  the  thought 
meant  by  the  Holy  Spirit  with  his  oicii  apiilicatioii  to  analogous  times  and  occur- 
rences in  the  Church,  led  to  an  arbitrariness  of  exegesis  which  has  made  Cocceian- 
ism  proverbial  (3).  The  remarkable  manner  in  which  on  this  system  the  history 
of  the  divine  kingdom  is  embraced  in  an  artificial  schematism  may  be  seen  in 
Giirtler's  Systema  theologice  prophetica,  2d  ed.  1724.  (Giirtler  makes  three  great 
])eriods, — the  first  from  Adam  to  Moses,  the  second  extending  to  the  death  of 
Christ,  and  the  third  to  the  end  of  the  world  ;  each  of  these  is  divided  into 
seven  periods,  and  the  numerically  corresponding  periods  in  each  of  the  three 
rows  of  seven  are  supposed  to  have  also  corrcspondiag  characteristics.)  Among 
the  pupils  of  Cocceius,  the  following  did  special  service  to  biblical  theology  : — 
Momma,  De  varia  conditione  et  statu  ecclesim  Dei  sub  triplici  ceconomia  ;  the  excel- 
lent Witsius,  On  the  Economy  of  the  Covenants  (4);  Vitringa,  the  famous  commen- 
tator on  Isaiah  {De  synagoga  vetere,  Observationes  sncrcr, ;  and  in  particular,  his 
Uypotyposis  historid'.  et  chronologic  sncrrp).  Among  the  opponents  of  Cocceius  we 
name  especially  Melchior  Leydecker  (De  repuUica  Ilehroiorum,  1704).  Among  the 
Lutheran  theologians,  Joh.  Heinrich  Majus  (Professor  in  Giessen)  was  specially 
influenced  by  the  Reformed  biblical  theology  {(Economia  temporum  V.  T.,  1712  ; 
Synopsis  theologioi  judaica,   1698);    his  Theologia  prophetica,  ev  sekctiarihus   V,   T. 


§  11.]    CONCEPTION   OF   O.  T.  IN   THE   OLDER    PROTESTANT  THEOLOGY.    29 

oraculis,  1710,  claims  particular  notice,  in  which  the  Theologia  Davidls  ex  jtsalmis 
appears  as  a  distinct  part,  and  along  with  it  a  theologia  Jesajana,  theologia  Jere- 
7niana,  and  a  theologia  prophetica  ex  vatibus  xii.  minoribus.  The  arrangement  in 
these  works,  which  are  not  without  interest,  follows  that  of  the  Loci  in  treatises  on 
doctrinal  theology  (5). 

(1)  Gerhard  lays  down  the  following  propositions  :  Quod  ad  rem  ipsam  sive 
mysteria  fidei  attinet,  doctrina  veteris  testamenti  nequaquam  est  imperfecta,  siqui-- 
dem  eosdem  fundamentales Jidei  articuhs  tradit,  quos  Christus  et  apostoli  in  novo 
testamento  repetunt.  Quod  ad  docendi  modum  attinet,  fatemur,  qutedam  fidei 
mysteria  clarius  et  dilucidius  in  novo  testamento  expressa  esse,  sed  hoc  perfec- 
tioni  reali  nihil  quidquam  derogat,  cum  ad  perspicuitatem  potius  pertineat  quam 
ad  res  ipsas  cognoscendas. 

(2)  [Socinus  was  not  disposed  to  deny  the  divine  origin  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, but  maintained  that  it  was  not  essential  for  the  establishment  of  Christian 
doctrine  and  possessed  only  a  historical  value.  The  connection  of  the  two  Testa- 
ments was  made  in  a  quite  external  way  to  consist  chiefly  in  the  fact  that  certain 
commands  (viz.,  those  of  amoral  nature)  were  common  to  both  ;  but  beyond  this 
a  considerable  difference  was  held  to  exist  between  the  perfect  commands  and  per- 
fect promises  of  God  in  the  New  Testament  and  the  commands  and  promises  found 
in  the  Old,  and  it  was  especially  charged  upon  the  Old  Testament  that  it  only  taught 
temporal  rewards  and  punishments  and  restricted  forgiveness  to  mere  sins  of  in- 
firmity.— Prol.\ 

To  see  how  the  orthodox  view  of  the  Old  Testament  was  confirmed  in  the 
struggle  against  the  Socinians,  compare  Diestel,  "  Uber  die  socinianische 
Anschauung  vom  A.  T.,"  Jahrb.  fiir  devtsche  Theol.  1862,  p.  709  ff. ;  how,  on  the 
other  side,  a  path  was  opened  by  the  Reformed  theology  for  a  theology  of  the 
Old  Testament,  may  be  read  in  Diestel's  "  Studien  zur  Foederaltheologie, "  in  the 
same  journal,  1865,  p.  219  ff. 

(3)  The  main  work  by  Cocceius  on  this  topic  is  the  beautiful  little  book, 
Summa  doctrinm  defoidere  et  testamento  Dei,  ed.  2,  1654,  68  ;  note  specially  the 
preface  to  this  book,  in  order  to  value  its  position  aright,  as  well  as  chapters 
eleventh  and  twelfth.  There  is  nothing  to  be  said  against  several  of  his  princi- 
ples of  interpretation  ;  his  theory  is  better  than  his  practice.  He  has  with  great 
clearness  charged  exegesis  with  the  task  of  freeing  itself  from  the  belittling  style 
of  hanging  unduly  on  single  texts,  and  of  learning,  on  the  other  hand,  to  compre- 
hend the  Scriptures  as  an  organism.  But  what  was  gained  on  the  one  side  was 
lost  on  the  other  by  the  artificial  parallels  drawn  between  the  various  stages  of 
revelation,  and  by  the  typical  exposition  which  Cocceius  used.  From  this  arose 
that  plurality  of  senses  in  interpretation  which  brought  on  him  the  reproach  that 
he  could  make  each  passage  mean  everything  ;  and  from  this  came  such  Cocceian 
oddities  as  the  notion  that  Isa.  xxxiii.  7,  "  Behold,  their  valiant  ones  shall  cry 
without;  the  ambassadors  of  peace  shall  weep  bitterly,"  is  a  prophecy  of  the 
death  of  Gustavus  Adolphus. — Among  his  pupils,  Witsius  and  Vitringa  in  partic- 
ular returned  to  more  prudent  paths. 

(4)  Witsius'  work,  De  oeconomia  faderum  Dei  cum  hominihus,  lih-i  quatvor  (ed. 
4,  1712),  [Eng.  transl.  2  vols.,  London,  1840],  contains  what  may  be  called  a 
theology  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  first  and  fourth  volumes,  and  still  deserves 
to  be  known  and  valued  ;  in  the  treatment  of  the  types,  indeed  (iv.  6),  much 
that  is  irregular  and  arbitrary  prevails,  although  he  seeks  to  find  general  rules  of 
procedure.  (The  conscientiousness  of  the  writer  appears  in  such  passages  as  CEc. 
feed.  p.  639,  where  he  says  :  in  omnibus  caute  agendum  est,  /uEra  cpofSov  kcu  rpojuov, 
ne  mysteria  fingamus  ex  proprio  corde  nostro,  horsumve  obtorto  collo  trahamus, 
quae  aliovorsum  spectant.  Injuria  Deo  et  ipsius  verbo  fit,  quando  nostris  inventis 
deberi  volumus,  ut  sapienter  aliquid  dixisse  vel  fecisse  videatur.)     [Prol.] 

(5)  The  writings  of  'Majus  are  interesting  in  the  first  place,  because  he  pro- 
ceeds to  consider  separate  books  of  Scripture  in  their  theological  import.     This, 


30  INTRODUCTION.  [§    13. 

indeed,  is  carried  out  in  an  artificial  way,  for  he  simply  takes  the  loci  of  the  doc- 
trinal system  as  his  framework  (Hengstenberg  has  done  the  same  with  the 
Psalms);  but  it  is  worth  noticing  what  a  fulness  of  theological  matter  is  contamed 
in  many  of  the  separate  biblical  books.  Secondly,  it  is  interesting  to  see  how 
Majus,  in  his  Theologia  prophetica,  places  a  dictum  classicum  at  the  head  of  each 
locus,  which  he  treats  as  pertaining  to  the  Old  Testament  theology,  attaching  to 
the  interpretation  of  this  leading  passage  his  doctrinal  matter  ;  for  example,  the 
locus  of  the  unity  and  trinity  of  God  is  headed  by  Deut.  vi.  4,  "  Hear,  O  Israel, 
Jehovah  our  God  is  one  Lord  !"  the  locus  of  the  creation  by  Gen.  i.  1,  "  In  the 
beginning  God  created,"  etc.;  the  locus  of  sin  by  Ps.  xiv.  3,  "  They  are  all  gone 
aside,"  etc.;  the  locus  of  Christ  by  Prov.  viii.  33,  the  passage  on  pre-existent 
Wisdom  ;  the  locus  de  ecclesia  by  Ps.  xlvi.  5  f. 

§13. 

CONCEPTION  AND  TREATMENT  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  PROM  THE  END  OP  THE 
SEVENTEENTH  TO  THE  END  OP  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY. 

In  the  Lutheran  Church,  collegia  biblica,  or  topical  lectures,  became  common 
from  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century  onward  {e.g.  Schmid,  Collegium  hiblicum; 
Baier,  Analysis  et  Tindicatio  illustri^im  script,  s.  dictoruvi).  These  lectures,  which 
contained  exegetico-dogmatical  discussions  of  the  most  important  proof-texts  of 
the  doctrines  of  the  Church,  gave  some  impulse  to  the  study  of  biblical  as 
distinguished  from  doctrinal  theology,  but  cannot  be  regarded  as  of  much  conse- 
quence. The  works  on  the  Church  history  of  the  Old  Testament.,  as  they  were 
called,  which  came  out  about  the  same  time,  are  of  more  value  for  tiie  theology 
of  the  Old  Testament.  The  most  important  of  these  is  the  Historia  ecclesiastica 
ceteris  testamenti  of  Buddeus,  od,  ed.  vol.  ii.  173G-39  (1).  The  biblicism  of 
Spener  and  his  school  weakened  the  doctrinal  rigor  of  the  prevalent  orthodoxy  ; 
but  since  the  tendency  of  pietism  [under  his  influence]  was  directed  predominantly 
to  practical  expositions  of  Scripture,  and  the  value  of  the  separate  portions  of  the 
Bible  was  measured  by  the  degree  of  their  adaptation  to  personal  edification, 
pietism  could  not  contribute  to  Biblical  Theology  as  an  historical  science.  The 
one  circumstance  which  was  valuable  for  prophetic  theology  was,  that  Spener 
did  justice  to  the  scriptural  view  of  the  completion  in  this  world  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  (2).  John  Albrecht  Bengel,  upon  the  ground  of  his  view^  of  the  divine 
kingdom  as  an  ceconomia  divina  circa  mtindum  tiniversum,  circa  genus  humanum, 
insisted  on  an  organic  and  historical  conception  of  biblical  revelation  with  strict 
regard  to  the  difference  of  its  stages.  The  "Wiirtemberg  school,  which  took  its 
origin  from  him,  regarded  as  its  task  not  only  practical  edification  from  separate 
Bible  texts,  but  especially  the  awakening  of  a  knowledge  of  salvation,  resting  on 
insight  into  the  whole  course  of  the  divine  kingdom  (3).  In  this  connection, 
Roos,  Burk,  Hiller  (4),  Oetinger,  and  others  have  advanced  profound  thoughts 
in  a  plain  and  simple  form.  The  Leij'zig  theologian  Christian  August  Crusius  is 
akin  to  the  school  of  Bengel  :  we  name  as  his  chief  work  the  Ilypojnnemata  ad 
theologiam  prophet icam,  in  three  volumes  (5).  Still  the  seed  scattered  by  Beno-el 
and  his  school  found  little  receptive  ground  amid  the  revolution  which  passed  in 
the  course  of  the  eighteenth  century  over  German  Protestant  theology.  The 
English  deism  had  become  powerful  in  Germany  also,  and  a  one-sided  subjectiv- 
ism stepped  into  the  place  of  the  scholasticism  of  Church  doctrine.  Believing 
only  in  itself,  it  admitted  that  alone  to  be  truth  which  man,  alienated  from  the 


§    13.]  CONCEPTIO]Sr    AND   TREATMENT   OF    OLD   TESTAMENT.  31 

Christian  experience  of  salvation,  undertook  to  evolve  from  himself.  What  is 
presented  in  the  Bible  as  a  revelation  from  God  was  explained  as  simply  the 
work  of  individual  men  who  undertook  to  found  religions.  The  writings  of  the 
apologists,  Lardner,  Warhurton,  Shuckfard,  LiUenthal  {The  Good  Cause  of  Divine 
Revelation,  16  parts)  contributed  indeed  much  important  matter  to  the  biblical 
branches  of  theology  ;  but  they  could  effect  but  little  m  opposition  to  their  op- 
ponents, since  they  agreed  with  them  in  ])lacing  the  biblical,  and  in  particular 
the  Old  Testament  institutions  on  the  ground  of  bare  utility  (6).  This  system 
of  referring  the  plan  of  the  Old  Testament  revelation  to  prudential  considerations 
of  the  most  trifling  character  which  J.  Spencer  (7)  in  his  learned  work,  De 
legibus  Ilehrceorum  ritualibus  earumque  rationibus,  1686  (published  again  by  Pfaff, 
1732),  and  Clericus  had  introduced,  became  quite  predominant  in  Germany 
through  the  works  of  the  learned  orientalist  of  Gottingen,  Joh.  David  Michaelis, 
who,  in  his  Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  Moses  (1770-1775)  [London,  1814,  4  vols. 
8vo],  pressed  the  theory  of  utility  to  the  utmost  (8).  Semler's  tendency  has  a  more 
ethical  character.  He  regards  that  which  is  serviceable  for  moral  improvement, 
not  that  which  edifies  the  Christian,  as  the  one  thing  of  importance,  and  as  that 
by  which,  therefore,  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  the  divine  and  the  human,  the 
material  and  the  immaterial,  must  be  distinguished.  He  maintains  none  the  less 
that  the  Bible  and  Church  doctrine  [i.e.  the  Lutheran  theology]  contradict  each 
other, — a  proposition  which  from  his  time  onward  was  accepted  equally  by  ration- 
alists and  supernaturalists.  Thus  Biblical  Theology  became  completely  freed 
from  the  theology  of  the  Church  creeds. 

(1)  Comp.  Hengstenberg,  *  History  of  the  Kiiigdam  of  Ood  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, i.  p.  80. 

(2)  Comp.  on  this  point,  and  part  of  what  follows,  Delitzsch,  Die  Mhlisch-pro- 
phetisc.he  Theologie,  ihre  Fortbildungdurch  Chr.  A.  Crusius  nnd  ihre  neveste  Entwicke- 
tung,  1845. 

(3)  Bengel  himself  wrote  nothing  on  the  Old  Testament,  except  as  his  Ordo 
temporum  includes  the  Old  Testament.  We  must  observe,  however,  that  dis- 
jointed suggestive  hints  m  connection  with  the  Old  Testament  are  to  be  found 
scattered  everywhere  in  his  numerous  writings,  also  in  his^Onomon  to  the  New 
Testament,  etc.  The  propositions  in  opposition  to  the  dogmatism  of  the  period  in 
the  Ordo  temporum,  chap.  8,  "  de  futuris  in  scriptura  provisis  ac  revehitis, " 
ought  especially  to  be  noticed.  In  the  second  of  the  hermeneutical  rules  there 
given,  Bengel  states  the  proposition,  which  at  that  time  was  quite  new  (2d  ed. 
p.  257)  :  "  Q-radatim  Deus  in  patefaciendis  regni  sui  mysteriis  progreditur,  sive 
res  ipsae  spectentur,  sive  tempora,  Opertum  tenetur  initio,  quod  deinde  apertum 
cernitur.  Quod  quavis  atate  datur,  id  sancti  debent  amplecti,  non  plus  sumere, 
non  minus  accipere." 

(4)  Magnus  Friederich  Roos  is  Bengel's  most  eminent  pupil.  Among  his  works 
we  have  here  to  mention  :  Fundamenta  psychologies  ex  sacra  scriptura  collecta,  a 
work  rich  in  fine  remarks  ;  Etnleitung  in  die  billische  Geschichte,  1770  S..  (new  edi- 
tion. Stuttgart,  1876),  in  a  plain  popular  form,  and  likewise  offering  a  wealth  of 
subtle  thought  ;  Exposition  of  the  Pr'ophecies  of  Daniel,  and  others.  The  chief  work 
of  Burk  and  Hiller  are  cited  by  Delitzsch,  I.e.  p.  10.  Compare  also  the  introduc- 
tion to  Auberlen's  book.  Die  Theosophie  Friedr.  Christ.  Oetingers. 

(5)  On  Crusius  compare  Delitzsch  (I.e.  p.  1  ff.),  who  gives  his  views  in  detail, 
but  values  him  too  highly. 

(6)  In  this  connection,  the  argument  advanced  by  Warburton  in  his  work,  T% 

*  These  works  are  translated  in  Clark's  Foreign  Theological  Library. 


33  INTRODUCTION.  [§    13. 

Divine  Legation  of  Moses,  is  best  known.  Morgan  had  urged  against  the  divine 
origin  of  the  Mosaic  religion,  the  want  of  faith  in  immortality  and  retribution 
alter  death  ;  Warburton  argued,  on  the  contrary,  that  just  because,  under  a  com- 
mon providence,  civil  government  cannot  be  jnaintained  without  the  belief  in  future 
rewards  and  punishments,  tlie  Jewish  state  must  have  been  ruled  by  a  special 
providence,  because  in  the  Mosaic  religion  this  faith  was  wanting. — Samuel 
Shuckford  is  a  quite  similar  instance.  The  Deists  had  declared  the  Mosaic  service 
of  offerings  to  be  unreasonable  ;  now  Shuckford  argued  that,  because  the  wor- 
ship of  God  by  offerings  could  not  have  been  arrived  at  by  mere  reason  (for  "  1 
cannot  see  upon  what  thread  or  train  of  thinking  they  could  possibly  be  led  to 
make  atonement  for  their  sins,  or  acknowledgments  for  the  divine  favors,  by  the 
oblations  or  expiations  of  any  sorts  of  sacrifice  :  it  is  much  more  reasonable  to 
think  that  God  Himself  appointed  this  worship  "),  the  Lord  God  must  Himself 
have  set  up  this  service  (The  Sacred  and  Profane  History  of  the  World  Connected, 
1808,  i.  p.  34,  comp.  p.  79  ;  the  first  ed.  appeared  in  1727). — The  chief  work  (in 
German)  on  the  history  of  English  Deism  is  by  Lechler,  1847  ;  [in  English  by 
Leland,  View  of  Deistical  Writers :  see  also  Farrar,  Critical  HistorT/ of  Free  Thought, 
1863.] 

(7)  Spencer's  view  on  the  Mosaic  ritual  law  is  expressed  completely  and  con- 
cisely in  his  Dissertatio  de  Uri?n,  sec.  xii.  (ed.  Pfatf,  p.  974),  in  the  following 
sentences  :  "  Verisimile  est  rituum  Mosaicorum  partem  multo  maximam  ex  hoc 
triplici  fonte  manasse  :  (1)  e  moribus  quibusdam  religiosis,  quibus  patriarcharum 
exempla  et  antiquitatis  supremae  canities  reverentiam  conciliarant. — (2)  Quidam 
ritus  et  leges  Mosaicse  e  malis  saeculi  moribus,  ut  bonaj  leges  solent,  nascebantur. 
Cum  enim  Israelitarum  mores  post  curvitatem  diuturnam  in  ^gypto  contractam 
ad  rectum  duci,  nisi  in  contrarium  flectendo,  non  potuerint  ;  leges  ritusque 
multos  cum  moribus  olim  receptis  e  diamelro  pugnantes  instituit  Deus. — (3)  Alii 
originem  petiere  e  consuetudine  aliqua,  quae  apud  ^gyptios  et  alios  e  vicino  pop- 
ulos  inveteravit  ;  quam  Deus  integram  paene  reservavit  Israelitis,  ut  eorum  animos 
sibi  conciliaret,  qui  gentium  moribus  assueverant,  et  iis  ingenia  sua  penitus 
immiscuissent." — What  is  characteristic  of  Spencer's  conception  of  Mosaism  lies 
principally  in  what  is  said  in  number  3.  The  subtilty  which  the  age  was  fond  of 
ascribing  to  founders  of  religions  is  transferred  to  God  Himself.  (To  this  Witsius 
has  replied  well,  in  his  Jtgyptiaca,  Amst.  1683,  lib.  iii.  cap.  xiv.,  directed 
against  Marsham's  Canon  Chronicus,  and  Spencer's  Diss,  de  Urim  et  Thummim). 
"  God  appears  as  a  Jesuit,  who  makes  use  of  bad  means  for  reacliing  a  good 
aim"   (Bahr). 

(8)  Hengstenberg  has  given  a  thorough  critique  of  the  three  last  named  works 
in  his  Genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch  i.  pp.  3-17.  (9)  On  Semler,  compare  Diestel's 
essayin  the  Jah7'b.  fiir  Deutsche  Thcol.  1867,  p.  471  ft".,  "  Zur  Wiirdigung  Semlers." 
Semler's  merits  lie  more  in  the  department  of  the  history  of  doctrine,  not  so 
much  in  the  Old  Testament. 

§13. 

aiSE  OF  A  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY  DISTINCT  PROM  DOGMATIC.  TREATMENT  OF  THE 
OLD  TESTAMENT  BY  RATIONALISM,  AND  BY  THE  NEWER  HISTORY  AND 
PHILOSOPHY   OF    RELIGION  (1). 

John  Philip  Gabler  in  his  academic  oration,  Dejusto  discrimine  theologim  hiUicce 
et  dogmaticoB,  1787,  is  regarded  as  the  first  who  distinctly  spoke  of  liiblical 
Theology  as  an  historical  science.  The  name,  indeed,  is  older,  but  was  used  to 
denote  sometimes  a  collection  of  proof-texts  for  dogmatic  theology,  sometimes  a 
popular  system  of  doctrine  and  ethics,  sometimes  a  systematic  statement  of  bibli- 
cal doctrine  independent  of  the  dogmatic  theology  of  the  Church,  and  desicrned 
to  serve  in  criticising  the  latter.     Tlie  most  important  book  of  the  last-named 


§    13.]     RISE   OP    A    BIBLICAL   THEOLOGY    DiSTlNCt    SROM   DOGMATIC.      33 

class  is  Zachariae's  Biblical  Theology,  4  parts,  1773-75  (3). — Gabler,  on  the  other 
hand,  defined  the  work  of  Biblical  Theology  as  the  statement  of  "  the  religious 
ideas  of  Scripture  as  an  historical  /act,  so  as  to  distinguish  the  different  times 
and  subjects,  and  so  also  the  different  stages  in  the  development  of  these  ideas." 
— This  necessarily  demanded  the  separation  of  Old  and  New  Testament  theology. 
A  separate  discussion  of  each  was  next  given  by  Lorenz  Bauer,  Professor  of  the 
Doctrine  of  Reason  and  of  Oriental  Languages  at  Altorf  (Theology  of  the  Old 
Testament,  179G  ;  Appendices  to  the  work,  1801)  (3).  But  the  interest  in 
the  historical  treatment  of  tlie  subject  was  not  accompanied  by  an  equal  endeavor 
to  penetrate  into  the  contents  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  "  vulgar  rationalism" 
of  the  period  of  which  Bauer  is  a  representative,  was  neither  stimulated,  by  the 
suggestions  of  Lessing  (4)  and  Kant  (5),  to  grasp  the  educational  character  of  the 
Old  Testament,  nor  did  it  learn  from  Herder  to  appreciate  its  literary  beauty. 
The  chief  aim  was  to  elimitiate  everything  which  could  be  called  temporary, 
such  as  form,  orientalism  and  so  forth,  and  thus  to  dilute  the  essential  contents 
of  the  Bible  and  reduce  them  to  a  few  very  ordinary  commonplaces.  The  super- 
ficiality of  this  process  is  in  great  measure  shared  by  the  unfinished  work  of 
Gramberg,  Critical  History  of  the  Religious  Ideas  of  the  Old  Testament,  1839-30. 
Baumgarten  Crusius's  Outlines  of  Biblical  Theology,  1838  (which  gives  up  the 
separation  of  Old  and  New  Testament  theology),  and  Daniel  v.  Coelln's  Biblical 
Theology  (1836,  3  vols.),  are  the  first  works  that  mark  the  transition  to  a  thorough 
treatment  of  our  subject.  The  hints  respecting  a  treatment  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment as  an  organic  history,  which  had  been  offered  by  Herder  (6)  mainly  under 
stimulus  from  Hamann,  were  taken  up  by  De  Wette  with  discriminating  appre- 
ciation. But  in  his  Christ.  Dogmatih,  which  is  controlled  by  the  philosophy  of 
Fries  (od  ed.  1831),  this  view  is  not  carried  through  (7).  Of  recent  theologians, 
Umbreit  has  most  fully  accepted  the  standpoint  of  Herder,  developing  it  in  a 
positive  direction  {Practical  Commentary  on  the  Old  Testament  Prophets,  1841  ff.; 
Sin,  a  contribution  to  Old  Testament  Theology,  1853  ;  The  Epistle  to  the  Romans  ex- 
pounded on  the  basis  of  the  Old  Testament,  1856).  Ewald,  in  his  History  of  the 
People  of  Israel  (four  vols,  of  the  seven  belong  to  the  Old  Testament,  3d  ed.  1864 
ff.,  and  with  these  goes  the  volume  on  the  Antiquities  of  Israel,  3d  ed.  1876),  has 
interwoven  with  his  narrative  a  full  accovmt  of  the  growth  of  the  Old  Testament 
religion,  but  his  vague  notion  of  revelation  does  not  raise  him  essentially  above 
the  rationalistic  method  which  he  despises  ;  yet  this  diffusely  written  work  con- 
tains, along  with  much  that  is  arbitrary,  much  also  that  is  excellent  and  suggestive. 
The  new  phase  into  which  the  study  of  the  history  of  religion  has  entered  in 
the  present  century,  mainly  through  the  influence  of  Creuzer,  has  exerted  a  con- 
siderable influence  on  the  treatment  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  attempts  to 
throw  light  on  the  traditions  of  Genesis  and  the  institutions  of  Moses,  from  the 
comparative  history  of  religion,  have  especially  been  numerous  ;  cf.  Buttmann's 
Mythologus,  and  several  essays  of  Baur  in  the  Tubinger  Zeitschrift  fur  Theologie 
(8).  Kaiser  in  his  Biblical  Theology  (1813,  3  vols.),  proposed  to  treat  the  whole 
biblical  religion  "in  accordance  with  a  free  theological  position,  giving  it  its 
place  in  critico-comparative  general  history  and  in  universal  religion."  But  the 
comparative  method  is  applied  so  wholly  out  of  measure  and  rule,  especially  in 
•the  first  volume,  that  the  author  himself  subsequently  passed  sentence  upon  his 


34  iNTRODUCTioi^r.  [§  13. 

own  book.  The  chief  defect  in  this  comparison  of  religions  was  a  too  great  de- 
pendence on  outward  resemblances  without  a  sufficiently  deep  perception  of  the 
specific  peculiarities  of  the  religions  compared.  The  characteristic  idea  of  each 
religion  was  taken  mainly  from  Sclileiermacher  and  Hegel,  both  of  whom  had 
failed  to  do  justice  to  the  specitic  connection  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  ; 
while  Schelling's  philosophy  of  revelation,  on  the  other  hand,  does  recognize  the 
specific  relation  of  the  Old  Covenant  to  Christianity,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the 
philosopher  regards  the  basis  and  immediate  presuppositions  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment as  identical  with  those  of  heathenism,  and  represents  the  religion  of  the  Old 
Covenant  not  as  exempt  from  the  mythological  process,  but  as  working  through 
it  (9).  The  Old  Testament  was  viewed  from  the  standpoint  of  Hegel,  by  Rust 
{Philosophy  and  ChristAanity,  2d  ed.  1833),  Vatke  {Religion  of  the  Old  Testament, 
1835  ;  only  the  first  part  was  published  :  in  point  of  form  the  work  is  very 
finished),  and  Bruno  Bauer  {Religion  of  the  Old  Testament,  2  vols.  1838);  but  from 
the  same  philosophical  standpoint  the  two  last  named  came  to  entirely  opposite 
results  (10). 

(1)  Specially  valuable  for  the  history  of  Biblical  Theology,  since  the  end  of 
last  century,  is  the  above-cited  essay  of  Schmid,  "on  the  value  and  position  of 
the  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament  in  our  time,"  Titb.  Zeitschr.  f.  Theol. 
1838,  p.  135  flf. 

(2)  Zachariae  discusses  the  doctrines  of  the  Old  Testament  at  length,  but  they 
are  seldom  treated  in  a  purely  historical  manner  {e.g.,  §  81,  etc.). 

(3)  Lorenz  Bauer  wrote  on  [nearly]  all  the  departments  of  Old  Testament  study 
(not  only  on  biblical  theology,  but  on — Ilermeneutica  sacra  V.  T.,  Introduction  to 
the  Old  Testament  Antiquities,  and  History  of  the  Hebrew  Nation) ,  and  wrote  com- 
mentaries on  some  of  the  Old  Testament  books.  The  applause  with  which  these 
writings  of  a  theologian  who  made  the  Old  Testament  "  readable"  were  greeted, 
appears  from  the  revie%ys  in  the  theological  journal  of  Ammon  and  Haenlein 
(afterward  of  Gabler).  He  may  be  viewed,  therefore,  as  a  leading  representa- 
tive of  the  rationalistic  treatment  of  the  Old  Testament  at  thc},t  period.  The 
historical  process  by  which  he  gets  at  the  successive  development  of  religion  is  to 
distinguish  the  doctrine  (1)  of  Genesis,  (2)  of  the  other  books  of  the  Pentateuch, 
(3)  of  the  book  of  Joshua,  (4)  of  Judges,  and  so  on — fourteen  divisions  in  all. 
This  is  enough  to  show  how  external  is  his  apprehension  of  the  historic  devel- 
opment. The  critical  treatment  consists  in  judging  the  contents  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment from  the  principles  of  the  most  commonplace  intelligence,  and  sometimes  in 
condemning  tliem  as  superstitious  or  immoral  ;  or  at  times  *'  the  weaker  philoso- 
phy of  the  Hebrews"  is  treated  with  more  indulgence,  or  we  are  told  that  this 
was  "  the  extent  of  the  religious  enlightenment  of  the  Hebrews."     [Prol.] 

(4)  In  his  work  on  The  Education  of  the  Human  Race. 

(5)  Kant's  work,  Religion  within  the  Limits  of  Pure  Reason,  which  is  regarded  as 
the  starting-point  of  the  modern  philosophy  of  religion,  takes  notice,  though 
but  brietly,  of  the  Old  Testament.  Kant  asserted  the  relative  necessity  of  a 
positive  religion.  The  absolute  demand  of  the  moral  law  that  the  radical  evil  must 
be  overcome  by  what  is  good,  can  be  accomplished  in  mankind  as  a  whole  only  by 
the  founding  of  an  ethical  community  in  which  the  moral  law  becomes  the  general 
principle.  But  such  an  ethical  society  can  be  founded  only  by  a  religion  which, 
in  order  to  the  visible  manifestation  of  the  ethical  commonwealth,  must  take 
statutory  shape,  since  men  always  desire  a  confirmation  through  the  senses  of  the 
truths  taught  by  reason.  But  a  statutory  law  must  be  prescribed  under  divine 
autiiority  :  it  is  the  vehicle  of  the  religion  of  reason  by  which  man  must  train 
himself  to  free  morality. — One  would  suppose  that  these  propositions  opened  the 
way  in  an  unexpected  manner  for  the  philosophic  apprehension  of  Mosaism  ;  but 


§   13.]     RISE   OF   A    BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY   DISTINCT   PROM    DOGMATIC.      35 

Kant  made  no  such  ajiplication  of  them.  lie  had  a  strong  antipatliy  to  the  Ohl 
Testament,  under  tlie  idea  that  the  hiw  of  Moses  contains  not  moral,  but  mere 
political  precepts — does  not  prescribe  moral  disposition  as  a  motive  ;  and  that 
the  Old  Testament  has  no  doctrine  of  immortality,  and  is  confined  to  a  single 
nation.      [Prol.] 

(6)  Special  reference  is  due  to  Herder's  Ze^ters  on  the  Study  of  Theology ;  cf. 
e.g.  the  18th  letter  in  vol.  ix.  of  his  religious  and  theological  works.  The  lead- 
ing proposition  which  Herder  there  states  is  :  "  The  whole  Old  Testament  rests 
on  an  ever  fuller  development  of  certain  primitive  promises,  images,  results,  and 
their  whole  combined  sense — their  ever  wider  and  more  spiritual  jmrpose:  tht. 
New  Testament  was  therefore  a  fulfilling  of  the  Old,  as  the  kernel  appears  when 
all  the  shells  and  husks  that  hid  it  are  stripped  off.  They  were  stripped  oflE 
gradually,  and  with  ever  increasing  delicacy,  till  Christ  afi-peared ;  and  they  shall 
yet  be  universally  recognized  as  having  one  divine  end,  when  He  shall  come  with 
His  kingdom." 

(7)  Of  De  Wette's  writings  we  have  here  specially  to  mention  two  ingenious 
essays,— his  "  Contribution  to  the  Characteristic  Features  of  Hebraism,"  in  Creu- 
zer  and  Daub's  Studien  ;  and  a  paper  on  "  The  Symbolico-typical  kind  of  teach- 
ing in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,"  in  the  theological  Zeitschrift,  edited  by  him 
in  association  with  Schleiermacher  and  Liicke.  Here  we  find  such  statements  as 
the  following  :  "  As  every  phenomenon  in  time  is  interwoven  with  the  time  that 
precedes  and  follows,  so  Christianity  proceeded  from  .Judaism.- — The  whole  Old 
Testament  is  one  great  prophecy,  one  great  type  of  tl'.at  which  was  to  come,  and 
is  to  come,"  etc.  But  in  De  Wette's  Biblical  Dogmatics  this  view  recurs  only  in 
general  statements  (particularly  §211).  In  the  anthropological  introduction  to 
this  book,  the  idea  of  religion  is  determined  according  to  the  philosoj)hy  of  Fries. 
This  idea  is  then  applied  to  tlie  religioiis  contents  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments. Everything  in  them  which  does  not  square  with  the  utterances  and  laws 
of  the  ideal  rational  faith,  and  of  religious  sentiment,  is  excluded  or  regarded 
as  clad  in  a  foreign  garb,  and  only  what  remains  is  accepted  as  belonging  to  the 
true  essence  of  religion  (§  50,  51).  In  this  process,  the  Old  and  the  New  Testa- 
ment are  to  be  carefully  distinguished,  but  also  to  be  compared  with  each  other 
(§  58). — It  appears  from  his  essay  on  "  the  exposition  of  the  Psalms  for  edifica- 
tion" (Basle,  1836),  that  De  Wette  regarded  the  development  of  the  views  ex- 
pressed in  these  essays  as  belonging  not  to  scientific  theology,  but  to  the  practi- 
cal treatment  of  the  Old  Testament   for  ends  of  edification.     [Prol.] 

(8)  To  this  head  belong  especially  Baur's  essays  "  on  the  original  meaning  of 
the  Passover  and  Circumcision,"  and  "  the  Hebrew  Sabbath  and  the  national 
festivals  of  the  Mosaic  cultus" — both  in  the  Tiih.  Zeitschr.  f.  Theol.  1832.  In 
the  former  essay  Baur  states  the  standpoint  cf  his  investigation  thus  :  "  Mosaism 
must  be  viewed  as  a  great  religious  reform  ;  the  renewal  and  restoration  of  a 
purer  religion  periodically  darkened  and  threatened  by  still  greater  darkness  and 
decay.  It  contains  many  elements  accepted  by  tradition  from  primeval  anti- 
quity ;  and  the  further  these  elements  lie  beyond  the  strictly  limited  sphere  of 
Mosaism,  the  more  clearly  do  they  point  back  to  a  freer  and  wider  region  of  re- 
ligion, in  which  the  later  polytheism  also  shares — to  a  common  jorimeval  religion, 
from  which  special  forms  of  religion  proceeded  and  subsequently  separated." 
[Prol.] 

(9)  On  Schleiermacher,  cf.  §  8,  note  3  ;  on  Schelling,  cf.  Adolf  Planck,  Bchel- 
ling's  Posthumous  Works,  and  their  Importance  for  Theology  and  Philosophy.  1858. 

(10)  Hegel,  who  it  is  w^ell  known  distinguishes  religion  into  three  stages,  the 
religion  of  nature,  the  religion  of  the  spiritual  individuality  and  the  absolute 
religion,  makes  the  Jewish  religion,  together  with  the  Greek  and  Roman,  the 
second  stage.  Anorganic  relation  of  .Judaism  to  Christianity  is  consequently  rec- 
ognized ;  for  the  pre-Christian  forms  of  religion  are  only  the  individual  parts  of 
religion,  which  in  its  totality  appears  in  the  absolute  religion,  Christianity. 
Judaism,  like  the  other  religions  before  Christ,  is  an  essential  presupposition  of 
Christianity,   for  which  the  Old  Testament  really  contains  a  preparation.      But 


36  tNtHonucTioif.  [§  Ha. 

Judaism  thereby  stands  in  no  specific  connection  with  Christianity,  at  least  in 
none  closer  than  the  Greek  and  Roman  religions,  which  in  one  aspect  appear  to 
be  superior  to  it. — Bruno  Bauer,  indeed  {Zeitsehrift  fur  Sjieculative  Theol.  i.  p. 
256)  endeavored  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Hegelian  philosophy  of  religion,  to 
point  out  a  closer  positive  connection  between  Judaism  and  Christianity  ;  but 
this  standpoint  has  not  carried  him  beyond  the  view  that  the  Old  Testament  re- 
ligion stands  in  such  a  relation  to  the  Greek  and  Roman  religions  that  each  is  a 
negation  of  the  one-sidedness  and  narrowness  of  the  other,  and  from  this  inter- 
nal process  Christianity  came  into  being.  Vatke  thinks,  though  scarcely  in  the 
sense  of  his  master  (Hegel),  that  no  parallel  at  all  can  be  drawn  between  the  Jew- 
ish and  the  Roman  religions,  but  still  holds  fast  to  the  view  that  Christianity 
stands  in  the  same  relation  to  the  Jewish  and  the  heathen  religions.  On  the 
other  hand,  we  must  confess  that  Stuhr  takes  a  more  correct  view  of  the  peculiar- 
ities of  Judaism,  although  there  are  valid  objections  to  his  psychological 
arrangement  of  the  steps  of  religion,  according  to  which  heathenism  is  regarded 
as  the  religion  of  feeling,  or  of  immediate  cognition  ;  Judaism,  of  understanding 
and  reflection,  and  Christianity,  of  reason.     [Prol.] 


§14a. 

TnEOLOGICAL   VIEW   OF   THE     OLD   TESTAMENT     IN   THE     EARLIER     SUPERNATURAL- 
ISM,    AND   IN   THE   MOST   RECENT   LITERATURE. 

For  a  long  time,  supernaturalism  did  comparatively  little  for  Old  Testament 
theology.  In  only  a  few  treatises  is  a  living  historical  view  of  revelation  to  be 
found,  as  in  the  work  of  Hess,  who  aims  chiefly  to  show  that  revelation  proceeds 
on  a  pZa?i  (1).  More  important  is  Menlcen  {Attempt  at  a  Guide  to  Self-instruction 
in  the  Holy  Scripture,  3d  ed.  1833 — a  kind  of  biblical  dogmatics),  who  in  part 
carries  forward  the  line  of  thought  found  in  Bengel  (3).  In  general,  the  theo- 
logical use  of  the  Old  Testament  by  the  so-called  rational  supernaturalists  was  con- 
fined partly  to  the  proof  of  the  general  doctrines  of  the  Christian  religion  from  pas- 
sages of  the  Old  Testament,  partly  to  the  use  of  the  Old  Testament  prophecies  for 
the  defence  of  revelation.  In  the  latter  respect,  the  chief  point  treated  of  was 
the  citatious  in  the  New  Testament,  which,  however,  were  defended  often  with- 
out fixed  principles  as  to  the  relation  of  prophecy  and  fulfilment  (3).  Of  the 
writers  of  this  school  Steudel  alone  has  given  a  complete  exhibition  of  Old 
Testament  Theology  (4).  Although  he  acknowledges  the  necessity  of  studying  the 
Old  Testament  word  in  its  internal  connection  with  the  history  of  salvation,  his 
book  is  confined  to  a  systematic  statement  of  the  religious  teachings  of  the  Old 
Testament  ;  and  the  progress  of  religious  knowledge  in  the  Old  Testament  is  ex- 
hibited not  as  an  organic  development,  but  more  from  the  outside  as  the  gradual 
filling  up  of  a.  frameworlc  given  from  the  first  (5). 

The  first  to  exert  a  decisive  influence  on  the  theological  treatment  of  the  Old 
Testament  was  Hengstenberg,  mainly  by  his  Christology  of  the  Old  Testament  (3 
vols.,  1st  ed,  1829-35,  2d  ed.  rewritten,  1854-57)  ;  [Eng.  transl.  4  vols.].  With 
all  its  one-sidedness,  or  even  partly  because  of  its  marked  one-sidedness,  this  book 
made  an  epoch.  The  position  which  Hengstenberg  first  took  in  treating  the  Old 
Testament,  and  which  he  never  except  partially  relinquished,  is  essentially  that 
of  the  old  Protestant  theology  ;  for  while  not  accepting  all  the  tenets  of  the 
latter,  he  yet  very  distinctly  aimed  at  finr'ing  all  the  fundamental  New  Testament 


§    14a.]     THEOLOGICAL   VIEW   OF  THE   0.  T.  IN   SUPERNATUHALISM.        3? 

doctrines  in  the  Old  Testament,  not  in  a  process  of  growth,  but  ready  made  (6). 
With  this  was  naturally  united  a  sijiritnalizing  tendency  in  his  explanation  of  the 
prophecies,  which  failed  to  do  full  justice  to  the  historical  facts  (7).  Hengsten- 
berg  deserves  the  credit,  however,  of  having  been  the  first  to  revive  in  Germany 
a  strong  religious  and  theological  interest  in  the  Old  Testament.  After  his  death 
appeared  the  History  of  the  Kingdom  of  Ood  under  the  Old  Testament^  edited  from 
his  lectures,  1869-71  [Eng.  transl.  3  vols.  1871-2].  The  standpoint  of  Hengsten- 
berg's  criticism  is  also  that  of  F.  R.  Hasse  in  his  History  of  the  Old  Covenant 
(published  posthumously,  Leipzig  1863),  a  book  full  of  matter,  but  which  does 
not  go  into  details  as  to  the  Old  Testament  doctrine.  In  this  respect  Havernick's 
Lectures  on  Old  Testament  Theology  serve  as  a  supplement  to  the  book.  These 
lectures  (posthumously  published  by  Halin,  18  i8,  and  again,  with  notes  and  val- 
uable additions  by  H.  Schultz,  in  1803)  state  only  the  doctrines  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  these  not  completely,  but  contain  much  that  is  very  good. 

It  still  remained  to  exhibit  the  whole  course  of  the  Old  Testament  history  of 
salvation  in  its  organic  continuity,  and  with  due  regard  to  the  progressive  mutual 
relation  between  the  word  of  revelation  and  the  events  of  history.  This  task  was 
undertaken  by  J.  Chr.  K.  Hofmann,  Profhecy  and  Fulfilment  in  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments^  3  vols.  1841-44.  In  opposition  to  Hengstenberg's  refusal  to  recog- 
nize the  historical  gradation  in  the  Old  Testament,  Hofmann  brings  to  view  the 
progressive  connection  »f  prophecy  with  history  ;  but  in  doing  so,  gives  in  a  one- 
sided manner  the  revealing  word  such  a  secondary  relation  to  the  revealing 
events,  as  often  to  throw  the  former  into  the  background.  The  relation 
between  the  word  and  the  events  of  revelation  was  afterward  presented  more  cor- 
rectly in  Hofmann's  Schriftheioeis,  which  contains  a  series  of  very  valuable  contri- 
butions to  the  theology  of  the  Old  Testament  (8). 

(1)  The  chief  production  of  Hess  here  to  be  noticed  is,  "  On  the  Kingdom  of 
God  ;  an  Attempt  to  sketch  the  Plan  of  the  Divine  Institutions  and  Revelations," 
2  vols.  1781.  A  subsequent  abi-idgment  of  the  book  is  entitled  Substance  of  the 
Doctrine  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  1814;  well  characterized  by  Hengstenberg  in 
his  History  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  i.  p.  85  f . 

(2)  Menken  published  the  results  of  his  biblical  inquiries  not  in  a  form  strictly 
scientific,  but  in  a  somewhat  elevated  popular  style.  He  may  be  said  to  have 
regarded  it  as  his  life-work  to  investigate  and  elucidate  the  course  of  revelation  ; 
for  in  the  demonstration  of  the  way  in  which  the  history  of  God's  kingdom  forms 
a  close  harmonious  whole,  he  correctly  saw  the  best  defence  of  the  Bible.  By 
his  expositions,  at  once  clear  and  deep,  he  alike  opposed  mystical  fantasies  and 
rationalistic  and  supernaturalistic  superficiality.  No  doubt  he  was  himself  one- 
sided, and  in  particular  was  led  away  by  his  opposition  to  the  Church  doctrine 
of  the  atonement  to  an  extremely  forced  explanation  of  several  passages  (com- 
pare especially  in  his  Attempt,  etc.,  chap,  vi.,  Appendix  B,  on  the  doctrine  of 
the  Atonement,  and  C,  on  Isa.  liii.  5);  but  it  is  not  to  be  forgotten  that  Menken's 
view  of  God's  holiness,  and  its  connection  with  his  theory  of  the  atonement,  con- 
tained an  element  of  truth  neglected  in  the  theories  he  opjiosed.  So,  too,  we  may 
find  reason  to  object  in  important  points  to  the  essays  (bearing  specially  on  Old 
Testament  theology)  upon  the  brazen  serpent  (Bremen,  1839),  and  on  faith  and  the 
doctrine  of  eternal  life  in  the  Old  Testament  (Appendix  to  chap.  v.  of  the  Attempt)  ; 
but  we  cannot  deny  to  these  investigations,  as  a  whole,  the  praise  of  being 
thorough  and  carefully  considered.     [Prol.  ] 

(3)  The  text  of  the  Old  Testament  was  expounded  now  literally,  now  figura- 
tively, just  as  the  citation  seemed  to  demand  ;    a  tortuous  process,  of  which 


3S  lif^TRoDtJCittOK-.  i§  14a, 

Schleiermaclier  might  well  say,  "  The  effort  to  prove  Christ  in  this  manner  from 
the  prophecies  I  can  never  regard  as  a  work  to  be  delighted  iu"  (2d  letter  to 
Liicke,  in  vol.  ii.  of  his  collected  theological  works,  p.  020). 

(4)  Lectures  on  Old  Testament  Thevloyy,  delivered  by  Steudel,  edited  after  his 
death  by  me,  Berlin  1840  (cf.  my  notice  of  the  book  in  Tholuck's  Litt.  Ameiger, 
1843).  In  furtiier  illustration  of  the  views  in  this  work  are  several  monographs 
by  Steudel,  among  which  the  most  valuable  are  the  essays  against  the  views  of 
Hegel  and  Kust  as  to  Judiusm  :  "  Glances  at  the  Old  Testament  Revelation,"  in 
the  Tub.  Zeitschrift far  Theol.  1835. 

(5)  A  passage,  specially  characteristic  of  Steudel's  position,  is  found,  I.e.  p. 
66  :  "In  the  beginning  the  consciousness  of  God,  and  of  man's  relation  to  Him, 
presents  itself  in  the  most  general  way.  We  cannot  expect  here  to  find  man 
otherwise  than  with  a  limited  vision,  as  the  child  has  a  limited  vision  ;  but  the 
framework,  as  it  were,  is  already  there,  and  ever  as  the  vision  grows  more  ex- 
tended, religious  knowledge  becomes  richer."  To  the  same  purport  it  is  urged, 
p.  67,  that  from  "  the  sum  of  divinely  revealed  trutli"  must  be  stripped  6*27"  what 
is  imperfect  in  the  form,  which  is  a  consequence  only  of  the  imperfection  of  the 
nursling,  not  of  the  mirturer. — Although  the  principle  of  a  divine  tuition  here 
set  fortli  is  perfectly  legitimate,  every  one  can  see  that  the  feature  by  which  the 
law  was  naiSayuyoQ  elg  XptarSv  has  not  justice  done  to  it.'  But  e^en  apart  from 
this,  the  whole  idea  that  in  the  New  Testament  the  cognitions  of  truth  contained 
in  the  Old  are  only,  as  it  were,  stripped  of  certain  imperfect  forms,  and  on  the 
other  side  increased  by  further  knowledge,  is  utterly  untenable.  8uch  an  idea 
ascribes  to  the  Old  Testament  both  too  much  and  too  little.  Too  much,  for  we 
are  bold  to  assert  that  there  is  not  one  biblical  doctrine  which  is  fully  unfolded 
in  the  Old  Testament,  and  therefore  transferred  to  the  New  Testament  without 
further  development,  as  a  complete  thing  by  itself  :  and  too  little,  since  the  New 
Testament  gives  no  wholly  new  doctrine  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  truth  of  the 
gospel  has  a  corresponding  preparation  in  the  Old  Testament  in  all  its  compass 
and  all  its  parts.     Compare  also  my  article  "  Steudel,'"  in  Herzog's  Real-Encyklop. 

(6)  This  was  demanded  of  Hengstenberg  by  his  strong  faith  in  revelation, 
which  repudiated  every  concession  made  to  rationalism,  and  by  the  common- 
sense  character  of  the  man,  which  in  all  things  pressed  for  firm  final  results. 
This  characteristic  comes  out  most  strongly  in  the  first  volume  of  the  first  edition 
of  his  Ghristology ;  especially  in  the  sections  on  "  The  Godhead  of  the  Messiah 
in  the  Old  Testament,"  and  "The  Suffering  Messiah  in  the  Old  Testament." 
In  the  former  essay,  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  God-manhood  of  the  Messiah  and 
the  inner  distinctions  of  the  divine  essence  (the  difference  between  the  revealed 
and  hidden  God)  is  transferred  to  the  Old  Testament.  The  difference  between 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  on  this  point  {I.e.  p.  250)  is  supposed  to  be  only 
that  the  latter  doctrine  is  less  prominent  in  the  Old  Testament,  because  before 
the  Logos  became  flesh,  the  Revealer,  and  He  whom  He  revealed,  were,  as  it 
were,  lost  in  one  another. — But  the  true  view  is,  that  till  the  Logos  became  flesh, 
the  real  incarnation  of  God  and  therefore  also  the  inner  distinction  in  the  divine 
essence  could  not  be  revealed  at  all  ;  for  the  acts  of  God  and  His  testimony  are 
not  outside  of  but  in  each  other,  mutually  conditioning  each  other.  The  Old 
Testament  reaches,  on  the  one  hand,  to  the  temporary  descent  of  God  into  visibil- 
ity in  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  ;  on  the  other  side,  it  struggles  after  the  apprehen- 
sion of  the  Messiah  in  a  divine  fulness  of  life  and  divine  dignity.  But  the  Angel 
of  the  Lord  always  returns  into  the  divine  essence  ;  and  though  the  Spirit  of 
Jehovah  rests  on  the  Messiah,  Jehovah  Himself  remains  transcendent  to  Him. 
The  real  union  of  God  and  man  is  therefore  aimed  at  in  the  Old  Testament  ;  but 
the  Old  Testament  contains  only  the  'movement  toward  this  union,  and  therefore 
does  not  contain  an  anticipation  of  tiie  knowledge  of  it.  (See  my  review  of 
Hiiverniok's  critical  investigations  on  Daniel,  in  Tholuck's  Lit.  Anzeiger  for 
1842).  In  other  words,  in  respect  to  this  doctrine,  Hengstenberg  understands 
the  unity  of  the  two  Testaments  to  mean,  that  the  New  Testament  doctrine  is 
found  in  tlie  Old  Testament  as  a  complete,   finished  prophecy,  though  perhaps 


§   14 J.]  CONTiXUATION  :    THE   ilOST  EECENT  LITERATUKE.  89 

"  less  prominent  ;"  but  the  true  meaning  is  ratlier  that  the  New  Testament  is 
groicing  in  the  Old,  and  therefore  is  in  the  Old  only  in  the  sense  in  which  the 
higher  developments  of  every  organism  are  contained  in  germ  and  type  in  its 
lower  stages.  [ProL] — In  later  years,  Heogstenberg  partly  drew  back  from  this 
standpoint ;  compare  also  what  is  said  by  him  in  the  introduction  to  his  History 
of  the  Kingdom  of  Ood^  etc.,  i.  p.  19,  in  answer  to  these  objections. 

(7  and  8)  Compare  my  article  "  Weissagung"  in  Herzog's  Real-EncyMopcBdie, 
xvii.  p.  650  ff.  Of  recent  books,  the  following  may  be  mentioned  :  Samuel  Lutz, 
Biblical  Dogmatics,  posthumously  edited  by  Rudolf  Kuetschi,  with  a  preface  by 
Prof.  Dr.  Schneckeuburger,  Pforzheim,  1847,  especially  in  the  second  part  ; 
"  Historico-dogmatical  Discussion  of  the  Biblical  Statement  of  the  Divine  Dis- 
pensation of  Grace  in  Israel,"  Ed.  Nagelsbach,  The  God-man,  the  Ftuidamental 
Idea  of  Revelation  ia  its  Unity  and  Historic  Development,  vol.  i.;  The  Man  of  Nature, 
1853,  unfortunately  carried  no  further  than  Noah.  Important  contributions  to  our 
subject  are  found  in  Kurtz,  '-^History  of  the  Old  Covenant,  2  vols.,  2d  ed.  1853-58  ; 
Auberlen,  *  Divine  Revelation,  an  apologetical  Essay,  2  vols.  1864  ;  Delitzsch, 
*  System  of  Biblical  Psychology,  2d  ed.  1862.  Hupfeld's  Commentary  on  the  Psalms 
contains  notes  valuable  for  the  understanding  of  the  Old  Testament.  Numerous 
monographs  will  be  referred  to  in  the  course  of  the  book. 


§  14?^ 

C0NTINUA.3liON  :    THE    MOST    RECENT   LITERATUKE. 

[Of  the  learned  works  in  this  department  recently  issued,  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant is  the  Old  Testament  Theology  of  H.  Schultz,  2  vols.  1869,  a  second  edi- 
tion of  which  appeared  in  one  vol.  in  1878.  The  religion  of  this  Old  Testament 
is  regarded  as  the  religion  of  revelation  in  its  gradual  progress,  the  religion  of 
redemption  coming  into  being,  in  distinction  from  redemption  completed,  as  it  is 
in  Christianity.  The  special  revelation  which  lies  at  the  basis  of  both  the  Old 
and  the  New  Testament  religion  is  recognized  as  corresponding  to  the  special 
connection  of  the  two.  Hence,  while  it  is  strongly  affirmed  on  the  one  hand 
that  the  Old  Testament  religion  is  historically  conditioned  and  prepared  by  the 
general  prior  development  of  mankind,  and  especially  by  the  religious  develop- 
ment of  the  Semites,  and  also  that  it  follows  historical  laws  in  its  further  advance, 
the  firm  position  on  the  other  hand  is  taken,  that  its  origin  and  development  are 
by  no  means  to  be  exj:)lained  as  barely  proceeding  from  historical  relations,  but 
from  revelation  in  the  special  historical  sense  of  the  word.  Still  it  must  be  con- 
fessed that  Schultz's  idea  of  revelation  is  burdened  by  an  unbiblical  restriction 
(cf.  §  6,  note  2). 

H.  Ewald,  in  his  comprehensive  work,  The  Doctrine  of  the  Bible  concerning  God, 
or  Theology  of  the  Old  and  Neio  Testaments,  4  vols.,  Leipsic,  1871-76,  believing 
with  the  Christian  Church  in  all  ages,  "  that  the  books  of  the  two  Testaments  as 
Holy  Scripture  constitute  an  inseparable  unity  in  respect  to  their  contents  and 
aim,"  but  keeping  in  view  also  the  difference  both  between  the  two  Testaments  and 
the  individual  books,  exhibits  the  unity  of  doctrine  in  the  Old  and  the  New  Testa- 
ments. He  regards  revelation,  on  which  all  religion,  and  especially  the  religion 
of  the  Bible  rests,  as  the  illumination  of  the  human  spirit,  in  its  search  after  God, 
with  new  religious  thoughts  and  intuitions.     On  this  view  revelation  is  rather  an 

*  These  works  are  translated  in  Clark's  Foreign  Theological  Library. 


40  INTRODUCTIOX.  [§    14/;. 

achievement  of  the  human  mind  than  a  tiling  received.  It  looks  more  like  a 
psychological  phenomenon  than  as  an  act  of  God.  F.  Hitzig,  in  his  posthumous 
Lectures  on  Biblical  Theology  and  Messianic  Prophecy  in  the  Old  Testament,  Karls- 
ruhe, 1880,  holds,  in  distinction  from  this,  that  there  is  no  need  of  a  special  reve- 
lation. He  conceives  the  God  of  Israel  to  be  the  product  of  human  reflection  rest- 
ing upon  the  basis  of  a  religion  held  by  Arab  nomads,  and  the  religion  of  Israel 
as  the  creation  of  the  Hebrew  mind,  "  constituted  from  the  beginning  for  the 
true  religion." 

What  is  usually  styled  the  Graf  hypothesis,  according  to  which  the  priestly 
legislation  of  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  is  a  post-exilic  production, 
belonging  to  the  age  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  would,  if  it  were  proved  to  be  cor- 
rect, be  followed  by  sweeping  results,  because  it  would  entirely  revolutionize  the 
received  view  of  the  historical  progress  of  the  religion  of  Israel.  This  hypothesis, 
advanced  or  suggested  by  Vatke  and  Reuss,  was  further  elaborated  by  Graf  in 
his  work,  The  Historical  Boohs  of  the  Old  Testament  (Leipsic,  1866)  ;  and  more 
recently  J.  Wellhausen's  History  of  Israel,  vol.  i.  (Berlin,  1878),  has  won  many 
adherents  to  the  view  that  "  the  Mosaic  law  is  not  the  point  of  departure  for  the 
history  of  ancient  Israel,  but  for  the  history  of  Judaism — that  is,  of  the  sect 
which  survived  the  people  annihilated  by  the  Assyrians  and  Chaldeans."'  The 
latest  work  in  which  the  attempt  is  made  to  carry  out  this  view  is  the  History 
of  the  Sacred  Writings  of  the  Old  Testament,  by  E.  Reuss,  Brunswick,  1881-82. 
In  adopting  this  hypothesis,  Bernhard  Duhm,  in  his  Theology  of  the  Prophets  as 
the  Foundation  for  the  Internal  History  of  the  Development  of  the  Israelitish  Religion 
(Bonn,  1875),  undertook,  by  an  investigation  of  the  contents  of  the  prophetical 
books,  to  get  a  view  of  the  origin  of  prophecy  without  the  basis  of  the  priestly 
legislation  of  the  Pentateuch  (1).  The  important  contributions  recently  made  to 
the  history  of  religion,  especially  by  Egyptology  and  Assyriology,  promise  to  be- 
come fruitful  for  the  understanding  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  Studies  for  the 
History  of  Semitic  Peligiojis,  by  W.  W.  Graf  en  Baudissiu  (vols.  i.  and  ii.,  Leipsic, 
1876-78),  come  in  this  connection  into  consideration.] 

(1)  On  account  of  the  importance  attached  at  present  to  the  question  of  the 
origin  of  the  priestly  legislation,  the  following  works  may  be  mentioned  :  In  favor 
of  the  hypothesis,  A.  Kueneu,  lleligion  of  Israel  (Haarlem,  1869,  Eng.  transl.  3  vols. 
1875)  ;  The  Prophets  and  Prophecy  in  Israel  (Leyden,  1875,  Eng.  transl.  1877)  ; 
Kayser,  The  Post-exilic  Book  of  the  Original  History,  1874,  also  "  The  Present 
State  of  the  Pentateuch  Question,"  in  the  t7a/t?'5«6'/ie?' /<«•  ^j?'o^.  Theologie,  1881, 
Nos.  2,  3,  4  (the  first  article  is  on  the  history  of  the  hypothesis)  ;  Wellhausen, 
"  On  tlie  Composition  of  the  TIexateuch,"  Jahrh.  filr  deutsche  Theologie,  1876- 
77.  Kittel,  "  The  most  Recent  Phase  of  the  Pentateuch  Question,"  in  the  Theol. 
Studien  aics  Wiirtcmherg,  1881,  Nos.  1,  2,  takes  an  intermediate  position.  Against 
the  liypothesis  ;  Delitzsch,  in  a  series  of  articles  in  LuthardVs  Zcitschrift  fur 
Mrchliche  Wissenschaft,  1880,  and  later  Bredeukamp,  Gesetz  und  Propheten, 
Erlangen,  1881  ;  to  be  consulted  also,  Dillmann's  Commentar  zu  Exodus  u. 
Leviticus  [who,  after  a  thorough  study  of  the  Levitical  legislation,  while  admit- 
ting that  the  book  of  the  law  did  not  receive  its  iinal  form  and  order  until  the 
time  of  Ezra  and  after  the  exile,  sharply  says,  "  that  the  laws  concerning  the 
priests  and  puV)lic  worship  were  first  committed  to  writing,  or  still  further,  were 
actually  first  made  in  the  exile  and  in  Babylon,  where  no  public  worship  was 
held,  is  nonsense.  There  is  no  evidence  whatever  that  the  Elohistic  part  of  the 
Pentateuch  was  written  in  the  age  after  the  exile  ;  the  testimony  of  Ezekiel  is 


§   15.]       CHAEACTEIIISTICS    OF   THE   HISTORICO-GEJSrETIC    METHOD.  41 

against  it  ;  many  laws  of  this  part  of  Pentateuch  are  against  it  ;  the  usages  of  the 
post-exilic  period  are  against  it."  See  also  Green,  Mo.ses  and  the  Prophets,  1883, 
and  Prof.  Briggs's  Art.  in  tlie  Presbyterian  Revietc,  1883J. 


IV.— METHOD    OF  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY.— DIVISION  OF  OLD  TESTA- 
MENT  THEOLOGY. 

§  15. 
CHARACTERISTICS    OP   THE    HISTORICO-GENETIC    METHOD. 

According  to  the  definition  in  §  2,  the  method  of  Biblical  Theology  is  historico- 
genetic.  As  a  historical  science,  it  rests  on  the  results  of  grammatico-Mstorical 
exegesis,  the  business  of  which  is  to  reproduce  the  contents  of  the  biblical  books 
according  to  the  rules  of  language,  Avith  due  regard  to  the  historical  circum- 
stances under  which  the  books  originated,  and  the  individual  relations  of  the 
sacred  writers.  In  the  last  respect  the  grammatico-historical  exegesis  passes  over 
into  psychological  exposition,  which  goes  back  to  the  inner  state  of  the  writer's 
life — a  species  of  exposition  which,  of  course,  is  peculiarly  indispensable  in  deal- 
ing with  passages  w^hich,  like  the  Psalms,  the  book  of  Job,  and  so  forth,  give  im- 
mediate expression  to  inner  experiences  and  frames  of  mind.  But  in  this  psy- 
chological exposition  we  reach  a  point  where  success  is  necessarily  proportional 
to  the  measure  in  which  the  Spirit,  which  rules  in  the  sacred  writers,  witnesses  of 
Himself  to  the  interpreter,  enabling  him  to  understand  by  personal  experience 
the  inner  experiences  of  the  writers. — If  exegesis,  however,  goes  no  farther  than 
the  exposition  of  individual  passages,  it  gives  only  an  imperfect  preparation  for 
Biblical  Theology.  Not  the  least  important  cause  of  the  former  defective  condi- 
tion of  the  latter  was  the  fact  that  expositors  limited  themselves  mainly  to  the 
explanation  of  isolated  passages,  which,  thus  isolated,  might  easily  be  made  to 
favor  any  preconceived  opinion.  Exegesis,  therefore,  must  proceed  to  grasp  the 
sense  of  individual  passages,  first  in  its  internal  connection  with  the  fundamental 
idea  of  the  book  in  general,  and  with  the  system  of  thought  characteristic  of  the 
author,  and  then  in  its  wider  connection  wdth  the  circle  of  ideas  proper  to  the 
special  region  of  the  dispensation  of  revelation  to  which  the  book  belongs — a 
process  which  Schleiermacher  in  his  Hermeneutik  reckons  as  part  of  psychological 
exegesis.  In  this  way,  we  reach  the  various  forms  in  which  revelation  expresses 
its  contents.  But  now  Biblical  Theology,  which  proposes  to  set  forth  revelation 
in  its  whole  course  and  in  the  totality  of  its  phenomena,  must  comprehend  these 
ioxTus  a.?,  members  of  an  organic  jJfocess  of  development.  And  since  every  such  pro- 
cess can  be  comprehended  only  from  the  points  of  its  culmination.  Biblical  The- 
ology must  view  the  Old  Testament  in  the  light  of  the  completed  revelation  of 
God  in  Christ  for  which  it  formed  the  preparation, — must  show  how  God's  saving 
purpose,  fulfilled  in  Christ,  moved  through  the  preliminary  stages  of  this  history 
of  revelation.  While  the  external  historical  method  deals  with  the  contents  of 
the  Old  Testament  according  to  the  presumed  chronological  order  of  the  books. 


42  INTRO  UUCTIOX.  [§    15. 

and  then  at  most  shows  how  new  religious  knowledge  was  added  from  time  to 
time  to  what  was  already  in  existence — how  the  earlier  knowledge  was  com- 
pleted, deepened,  corrected  ;  while  the  dogmatist  forces  the  doctrinal  contents 
ot  the  Old  Testament  into  a  framework  brought  to  it  from  without  ;  and  while 
the  method  of  philosophical  construction  deals  in  a  similar  manner  with  the  Old 
Testament,  by  cutting  it  up  critically  until  it  can  be  fitted  into  a  presupposed 
scheme  of  logical  categories — the  genetic  method  seeks  to  reproduce  the  living 
process  of  the  growth  of  the  thing  itself.  This  method  refuses,  however,  to  find 
lipe  fruit  where  only  the  bud  exists  ;  it  aims  to  show  how  the  fruit  grew  from  the 
l)ud  ;  it  sketches  the  earlier  stages  in  a  way  that  makes  it  clear  how  the  higher 
'stages  could,  and  necessarily  did,  spring  from  the  former  (1). 

(1)  De  Wette  (in  his  essay  On  the  Exposition  of  the  Psalms  for  Edification, 
fdready  cited)  disputes  the  scientific  objectivity  of  what  we  demand  of  theologi- 
cal exegesis.  He  says  (p.  22)  that  everything  that  links  the  Old  Covenant  to  the 
New,  and  forms  the  element  of  life  in  which  the  Old  Testament  grows  up  into 
the  New,  to  the  full  realization  in  Christ  of  a  life  at  once  divino  and  human,  is 
purely  general,  indefinite,  floating,  and  cannot  form  jiart  of  theological  science, 
l)ut  only  of  interpretation  for  edification.  That  it  is  of  a  general  kind,  is  true  ; 
that  it  is  also  indefinite,  floating  in  the  air,  is  false.  For  example,  no  one  will 
assert  that,  in  the  systems  of  Greek  philosophy,  the  idea  in  which  they  are  in- 
wardly linked  together,  and  which  forms  the  element  of  life  in  which  the  de- 
velopment of  the  one  moves  on  to  the  other,  "  is  in  its  nature  something  in- 
definite and  floating,"  and  thus  incapable  of  scientific  expression.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  scientific  treatment  of  the  history  of  philosophy  is  bound  to  find  a 
sharply  defined  expression  for  the  type  which  lies  at  the  basis  of  the  develop- 
ment of  philosophical  systems.  Now  certainly  the  philosopher,  in  proportion 
to  his  distance  from  the  culminating  point  of  the  development,  will  be  less  con- 
scious of  the  relation  of  his  own  system  to  the  development  of  the  philosophical 
idea.  Yet  it  is  no  violent  procedure,  but  only  what  is  due  to  the  system,  when 
the  historian  gives  to  it  its  right  place  in  the  process  of  pliilosophical  develop- 
ment, and  explains  it  from  this  connection. — Something  analogous  is  demanded 
of  Biblical  Theology — not  to  add  anything  new  to  the  knowledge  of  the  sacred 
writers,  but  to  grasp  what  lay  in  their  consciousness,  in  its  connection  with  the 
whole  organism  of  revelation  and  its  relation  to  the  completion  of  revelation, 
and  so  historically  to  comprehend  it.  This  understanding  of  Old  Testament 
revelation  its  organs  themselves  could  not  possess,  at  least  not  in  full  measure 
(compare  the  well-known  passages  concerning  the  prophets,  1  Pet.  i.  10-12  ;  2 
Pet.  i.  20),  because  in  every  process  of  development  the  lower  stage  does  not 
fully  understand  itself.  But  Christian  theology  stands  on  the  summit,  from 
which  it  surveys  the  whole  course  of  the  preparation  for  Christianity  ;  and  it 
would  be  strange  if  Old  Testament  Theology  gave  up  this  advantage.  Theologi- 
cal exegesis,  in  the  right  sense  of  the  word,  is  not  affected  by  the  fact  that  Stier 
(whom  De  Wette  mainly  attacks)  and  other  wTiters  have  brought  theological  in- 
terpretation into  bad  repute,  by  their  habit  of  finding  a  second,  third,  and  fourth 
-subordinate  and  seconrlary  sense  in  the  Old  Testament  besides  the  historico- 
grammatical  sense.  All  that  ought  to  be  pointed  out  is  the  relation  (to  the  com- 
pletion of  the  divine  kingdom)  of  the  thought  yielded  by  the  grammatico-his- 
toricfd  exegesis  of  a  pa^^sage — the  germiiiant  character  which  gives  us  words  full 
of  futurity  ;  the  Spirit  of  revelation  often  speaking  l)y  His  organs  words  which, 
in  the  fulness  of  their  significance,  they  themselves  did  not  understand. 


§    IG.]        DIVISIONS    01^    O.  T,   THEOLOGY    STATKI)    A]S"D    JUSTIFIED.  43 

§16. 
DIVISION    OF     OLD    TESTAMENT   THEOLOGY   STATED    AND   JUSTIFIED. 

Since  the  liistorico-genetic  metliod  setks  to  reproduce  the  course  of  develop- 
ment of  the  thing  itself,  the  divisions  of  Old  Testament  theology  must  corre- 
spond to  the  stages  in  which  the  development  of  Old  Testament  religion  took 
place.  The  proper  division  is  given  by  the  following  considerations  :  The  basis 
of  the  Old  Testament  religion  is  the  covenant  with  the  chosen  people,  into  which 
God  entered  for  the  accomplishment  of  His  saving  purpose.  This  covenant,  for 
which  the  way  is  prepared  in  the  first  two  ages  of  the  world,  is  carried  out  in 
two  stages  :  1.  The  patriarchal  covenant  of  promise  ;  and,  2.  The  Mosaic  cove- 
nant of  the  law,  on  the  basis  of  which  the  theocracy  is  founded.  This  whole 
sphere  may  be  summed  up  in  the  name  Mosaism  ;  for  the  ijre-Mosaic  revelation  is 
not  only  considered  in  the  Pentateuch  as  forming  the  introduction  to  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  theocracy  under  Moses,  but  itself  forms  a  component  part  of  the 
religious  belief  of  Mosaism  (1).  Whatever  elements  of  post-Mosaic  development 
of  legal  institutions  may  be  contained  in  the  Pentateuch,  they  still  rest  on  the 
principle  of  Mosaism  ;  and  so,  too,  the  other  theological  elements  contained  in 
the  Pentateuch  form  the  presuppositions  that  lie  at  the  foundation  of  the  prophetic 
theology. — On  the  basis  of  the  covenant  of  the  law,  the  development  of  the  Old 
Testament  religion  is  carried  on  in  two  ways  :  First,  on  the  side  of  God,  who 
continues  both  to  execute  and  to  proclaim  His.purposes,  the  former  by  guiding  the 
people  toward  the  purpose  of  the  divine  kingdom  ;  the  latter,  in  the  testimony  of 
prophecy  which  accompanies  the  history  of  the  people  and  which  interprets  it  at 
each  step  in  the  light  of  the  divine  counsel  of  salvation,  and  points  to  the  completion 
of  God's  kingdom.  The  second  part  of  Old  Testament  theology,  which  we  briefly 
call  Prophetism,  deals  with  those  elements  in  the  history  of  the  people  of  Israel 
from  their  entrance  into  the  promised  land  which  are  important  for  the  develop- 
ment of  God's  kingdom,  considering  these  as  they  appear  in  the  light  of  prophecy, 
and  also  discusses  the  theology  of  prophecy  itself. — Side  by  side  with  this  ob- 
jective development  of  the  Old  Testament  religion  goes  a  subjective  development 
in  the  Old  Testament  Wisdom,  which  equally  with  prophecy  has  its  root  in  the 
law,  but  develops  itself  independently  of  prophecy,'  and  does  not,  like  the 
latter,  claim  to  be  an  objective  word  of  God,  but  expresses  itself  in  aphorisms 
(D'Sk/O)  as  the  result  of  meditation  by  [inspired]  sages  whose  intellectual  instincts 
are  roused  [presided  over  and  guided]  by  revelation.  Nor  does  it  busy  itself 
with  the  spheres  marked  out  by  theocratic  institutions  and  the  prophetic  word, 
but  directs  itself  mainly  to  the  contemplation  of  cosmical  ordinances  and  the 
general  aspects  of  the  ethical  life.  Thus  our  third  division  is  the  Old  Testament 
Hhokhma  [wisdom]  (2). 

(1)  Against  our  definition  of  Mosaism  it  has  been  urged,  e.g.  by  Sack,  in  a 
review  of  my  Prolegomena  {Monatsschr.  fur  die  evang.  Kirche  der  Rheinjjvovinz, 
etc.,  1845),  that  it  is  quite  necessary  to  treat  the  sphere  of  patriarchal  revelation 
as  a  separate  stage,  introductory  to  Mosaism.— It  is  true  that  this  sphere  presents 
a  relative  difference  from  the  later  Mosaic  revelation,  as  the  Pentateuch  itself 
indicates,  by  the  difference  in  the  names  of  God  ;  and  it  is  possible  to  treat  the 


44  INTRODUCTION.  [§    16. 

two  apart,  for  Hengstenberg's  latest  work,  cited  above,  proves  that  this  pre- 
liminary stage  may  be  extended  to  form  a  theological  whole  with  rich  contents. 
But  such  a  course  makes  many  repetitions  inevitable  in  the  part  on  Mosaism.  I 
think  it  best  myself  to  incorporate  the  whole  preparatory  stage  in  Mosaism. — K. 
I.  Nitzsch,  on  the  other  hand,  would  make  the  whole  Old  Testament  theology 
begin  with  Abraham.  He  maintains  that  there  is  no  necessity  of  making  a  sepa- 
rate doctrinal  chapter  on  the  patriarchal  age.  The  primeval  history  in  the  first 
eleven  chapters  of  Genesis  gains  its  right  place,  according  to  him,  by  being  placed 
in  the  didactic  section  of  Mosaism  (article  Blblische  Theologie,  in  Herzog's  R.  E. 
ii.  p.  224). — In  general  this  is  sound  ;  Mosaism  gives  no  theory  of  creation, 
sin,  etc.,  but  presents  these  doctrines  in  a  historical  form.  But  though  thus  the 
contents  of  these  chapters  receive  full  elucidation  only  in  the  didactic  section 
of  Mosaism,  we  must  follow  Genesis  in  beginning  with  the  creation,  if  we  wish 
to  place  the  connection  of  the  narrative  in  the  light  in  which  the  Old  Testament 
itself  unites  the  history  of  revelation,  beginning  with  Abraham,  to  the  primeval 
time. 

(2)  The  division  of  the  Oil  Testament  canon  into  Law,  Prophets,  and  Ilagio- 
grapha,  though  not  entirely  agreeing  with  the  division  we  adopt,  points  at  least 
toward  it.  Mosaism  is  contained  in  the  Tora  ;  only  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to 
treat  the  book  of  Joshua  as  part  of  the  first  division  of  Old  Testament  theology, 
though  it  stands  in  the  second  division  of  the  canon.  The  whole  literary  charac- 
ter of  the  book  and  its  fundamental  theological  teachings  are  essentially  connected 
with  the  Pentateuch  ;  though  it  is,  perhaps,  questionable  whether  in  its  present 
shape  it  ought  really  to  be  called  the  sixth  book.  The  two  divisions  of  the 
D'KOJ,  the  prophetic  books  of  history  (the  former  prophets)  and  the  prophetic 
books  of  prophecy  (the  latter  prophets),  correspond  in  the  main  with  our  two 
divisions  of  the  second  part  of  Old  Testament  theology,  save  that  we  take  up  in 
this  second  part  the  historical  books  of  the  Hagiographa  and  the  book  of  Daniel. 
In  the  D'3in3,  the  Psalms  and  the  books  of  the  Hhokhma  contain  what  we  call 
the  suhjeetive  development  of  the  Old  Testament  religion  ;  though  a  good  part  of 
the  Psalms  is  cognate  in  subject  to  the  section  on  prophecy,  and  is  taken  up 
there. 

[A  reviewer  of  Oehler  in  the  Liter.  Centralblatt,  1873,  No.  50,  objecting 
to  this  division,  says  :  "  It  is  a  groundless  assumption  that  Mosaism  is  a  sort 
of  root  of  propiietism  and  the  doctrine  of  wisdom,  or  that  these  are  only  two 
radii  which  proceed  from  Mosaism."  The  force  of  this  may  be  estimated  by  his 
other  remark  :  "  on  the  contrary,  we  already  meet  in  Mosaism  prophetic  outlooks, 
and  even  before  Moses,  Jacob  had  uttered,  according  to  the  traditional  theology, 
his  Hhokhma  words,  which  Moses  himself  then  recapitulated."  For  aside  from 
the  fact  that  Jacob's  words  are  no  Hhokhma  words,  what  he  advances  is  no 
proof  against  the  position  that  the  development  of  the  Old  Testament  revelation 
and  religion,  on  the  basis  of  the  Mosaic  legal  covenant,  proceeded  in  the  twofold 
way  presented  in  the  paragraph,  and  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  questioning 
the  propriety  of  naming  the  two  series  of  development,  prophetism  and 
Hhokhma. 

Of  more  force  is  the  objection  of  H.  Schultz  {Jahrhitch.  far  deutsche  Theologie, 
1874,  p.  309),  who  says,  in  reviewing  this  work  :  "  The  separate  treatment  of  the 
so-called  Hhokhma  appears  to  me  a  mistake,  since  its  sources  extend  over  the 
entire  period  of  the  literature  of  the  Old  Testament."  But  on  a  closer  examina- 
tion this  objection  proves  to  be  more  apparent  than  real.  Since  the  Hhokhma  is 
treated  not  as  a  special  stage  of  development  which  succeeds  prophetism,  but  as 
contemporaneous  and  parallel  with  it,  the  real  objection  of  Schultz  must  lie 
against  making  Mosaism  a  presupposition  of  the  Hhokhma.  Now  since  he  does 
not  deny  that  Moses  was  the  founder  of  the  religion  of  Israel  (comp.  his  Alt  test. 
Theologie,  p.  126  ff.,  72  ff.,  81  ff.),  and  that  consequently  Mosaism  preceded  the 
development  of  the  Hhokhma,  he  can  only  mean  that  the  sources  do  not  place 
us  in  a  condition  to  become  acquainted  with  the  original  Mosaism  in  its  purity, 
and  that  we  only  have  it  with  the  further  form  which  it  had  assumed  at  about 


§    IG.]       DIVISIONS    OF    0.  T.  THEOLOGY    STATED    AKD   JUSTIFIED.  45 

the  end  of  the  ninth  century  B.C.,  a  form  of  which  the  older  parts  of  the 
Hhokhma  constitute  a  factor.  But  tliis  hist  position,  without  which  the  objec- 
tion of  Schultz  luis  no  force,  cannot  be  accepted.  Tliat  some  parts  of  the 
Hhokhma  are  contemporaneous  witli  further  developments  of  Mosaism  in  par- 
ticulars, is  no  evidence  that  they  belong  to  the  same  category.  It  is  possible 
that  their  relation  to  Mosaism  is  entirely  different  from  that  of  direct  develo])- 
ment.  If,  for  example,  a  man  like  Samuel  prescribed  a  law  for  the  Israelitish 
kings  in  the  spirit  of  Moses  and  his  institutions,  this  would  sustain  a  relation  to 
Mosaism  different  from  that  of  the  view  of  evil  in  the  book  of  Job,  which  goes 
beyond  the  Mosaic  doctrine  of  retribution.  The  two  views  presented  in  Job  ex- 
hibit different  stages  of  religious  thought,  while  in  the  former  case  we  have  only 
the  application  of  the  same  principle  or  fundamental  thought  to  new  relations. — It 
may  be  added  that  even  according  to  the  criticism  of  Schultz  there  are  important 
sources  of  information  which  are  evidently  older  than  the  Hhokhma.  Not  merely 
does  he  recognize  a  series  of  pieces  in  the  Pentateuch  which  indicate  a  greater 
age,  but  even  the  document  B  (the  Jehovist)  he  legards  as  dating  at  least  as  far 
back  as  the  time  of  Solomon.  Tiiis  composition  would  accordingly  give  us  in- 
formation concerning  a  "  Mosaism"  which  already  had  a  definite  shape  at  an 
age  when  the  Hhokhma  was  beginning  to  develoi").  Even  if,  therefore,  the 
critical  results  of  Schultz  were  anything  more  than  hypotheses,  it  could  not  be 
shown  from  them  that  the  position  assigned  to  the  Hhokhma  was  a  mistake.  In 
favor  of  treating  of  the  Hhokhma  by  itself,  not  only  in  general  is  the  time  at 
which  the  sources  were  composed  decisive,  but  along  with  the  point  of  view  in 
respect  to  the  time  when  tlie  range  of  thought  to  be  exhibited  develoi)ed  itself, 
there  is  the  subject  matter  also  to  be  considered. 

When,  therefore,  the  reviewer  above  referred  to  remarks:  "The  division 
adopted  by  Oehler  is  not  determined  by  historical  considerations,  but  merely  by 
the  contents  of  the  books,  and  is  anything  but  light  and  ])roper,"  this  '•'■  merehf  is 
palpably  false,  not  only  according  to  the  ciitical  jirinciplts  of  Oehler,  but  of  all 
critics  who  do  not  belong  to  the  extreme  school,  because  Mosaism,  whatever 
view  be  taken  of  its  extent,  historically  existed  before  the  Hhokhma  ;  and  that  a 
historical  division  must  not  neglect  a  distinction  in  regard  to  the  contents  of  the 
books,  of  the  importance  recognized  by  Oehler  between  the  Hliokhma  and  proph- 
etism,  no  one  wlio  is  competent  to  judge  will  deny.  It  ccmts  tiu.-illy  to  the 
question  whether  this  distinction  has  a  historical  support.  The  antipathy  of  the 
reviewer  and  of  Schultz  against  the  separate  treatment  of  the  Hhokhma  is  to  be 
accounted  for  no  doubt  by  the  view  they  take  of  revelation,  which  prevents 
their  recognition  of  this  distinction  ;  for  the  more  the  objective  factor  in  revela- 
tion is  thrown  into  the  background  in  compaiison  with  the  subjective  and  psy- 
chological, the  more  does  the  distinction  based  upon  the  objectivity  of  the 
revelation  imparted  to  the  prophets  lose  its  significance.  That  the  Hhokhma  oc- 
cupies a  sjihere  of  its  own  was  recognized  by  Vatke,  whose  point  of  view  was 
radically  different  from  that  of  Oehler.]  Vatke  divides  the  Old  Testament  re- 
ligion into  three  principal  forms  :  the  prophetic,  the  Levitical  or  legal  and  sym- 
bolical, and  the  subsequent  form  of  reflection.  He  adopts  this  order  because,  ac- 
cording to  his  view,  the  relation  of  law  and  prophecy  must  be  reversed,  so  that 
the  former  shall  proceed  from  the  latter  and  give  objective  foim  to  what  the 
prophets  readied  in  immediate  self-consciousness.  But  when  he  decides  that  a 
separate  treatment  of  these  three  forms  is  not  advisable,  because  the  difference 
between  them  affects  only  single  points,  and  no  one  form  presents  the  whole  con- 
tents and  excludes  the  others,  it  must  be  observed  in  reply  that  by  the  chief  points 
brought  forward  in  the  forms  of  prophetism  and  the  Hhokhma,  the  contents  of 
the  Old  Testament  idea  -were  opened  up  on  different  sides,  and  thereby  what  is 
common  to  both  appears  often  under  quite  distinct  points  of  view. 

We  may  recognize  the  difference  on  which  our  division  rests,  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment itself,  if  we  look  at  the  expressions  by  which  it  indicates  its  theological 
contents.  It  very  definitely  distinguishes  divine  commands  and  prerogatives, 
(iivine  ways  and  lea,diligs  in  history,  divine  visions  and  words  of  revelation  to  the 


46  INTRODUCTION.  [§    16. 

prophets,  and  lastly  utterances  whicli  are  the  fruit  of  the  reflection  of  sages,  and 
which  are  never  introduced  in  the  form  which  the  prophets  were  accustomed  to 
use.  [A  reply  to  the  objections  made  by  the  critical  theory  of  Graf  and  Wellhausen 
to  the  plan  of  this  work  is  not  possible  without  going  into  details.  It  will  often 
1)6  shown  in  the  sequel  how  there  appears  in  proplietism  a  further  development  of 
the  religious  ideas  of  Mosaism,  and  tims  the  whole  of  the  exhibition  of  the  the- 
ology of  the  Old  Testament  here  given  may  be  regarded  as  a  contribution  to  the 
evidence  that  the  Mosaic  legislation  forms  the  foundation  of  the  development  of 
religion  presented  in  the  Old.  Testament.  The  position  of  Dr.  Oehler  in  regard 
to  the  Pentateuch  question  can  therefore  only  be  stated  in  a  compendious  form. 
It  is  as  follows  : — 

We  must  start  with  the  testimony  of  the  Pentateuch  itself  in  regard,  to  its 
origin.  It  expressly  declares  that  Moses  wrote  the  book  of  the  covenant,  Ex. 
xx.-xxiv.,  and  the  laws  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  11-27,  and  beyond  this,  not  indeed  the  whole 
of  Deuteronomy  in  its  present  form  (for  1><3  i.  5  means,  not  "  he  engraved  "  or 
wrote,  but  "  he  explained,  expounded"),  but  in  all  probability  the  legislative  con- 
tents of  the  main  part  of  the  book,  which  in  chapter  iv.  4-48  and  xxviii.  69  (Eng. 
version  xxix.  1)  has  a  special  designation  at  the  beginning  and  end  (as  the  law 
or  covenant  given  through  Moses  to  the  children  of  Israel),  comp.  xxxi.  9,  24,  in 
which  passages,  by  "this  law,"  not  the  whole  Pentateuch,  but  only  the  Deute- 
ronomic  law  is  to  be  understood,  as  also  undoubtedly  is  the  case  of  the  law 
which  was  to  be  written,  according  to  xxvii.  3,  8,  upon  stones  on  Mount  Ebal. 
These  legislative  portions  of  Deuteronomy  agree,  in  a  remarkable  manner,  with 
the  book  of  the  covenant  in  Exodus,  which  purports  to  have  been  written  by 
Moses.  Tiie  list  of  stations  in  Numbers  xxxiii.  was  also,  according  to  v.  3,  writ- 
ten by  Moses,  and  the  passage  in  Ex.  xvii.  14  contains  an  intimation  that  the 
book  of  the  wars  of  the  Jehovah  mentioned  in  Num.  xxi.  14,  and  used  in  the  re- 
daction of  the  Pentateucli,  is  to  be  referred  to  Moses.  Only  on  the  assumption  of 
falsehood  can  this  evidence  of  Mosaic  composition  be  set  aside,  and  of  falsehood 
all  the  more  marked,  since  the  legislation  of  the  portion  in  question  firmly  adheres 
throughout  to  the  relations  existing  in  the  age  of  Moses,  and  speaks  with  the  most 
vivid  remembrance  of  the  experiences  of  the  nation,  and  especially  of  what  they 
themselves  had  seen  in  Egj^pt. 

In  addition  to  the  portions  which  are  expressly  referred  to  Moses  as  their 
author,  other  parts  may  have  proceeded  from  him,  although  it  is  not  distinctly 
stated.  Tiie  legislation  of  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  is  only  repre- 
sented as  orally  published  by  Moses,  but  it  must  be  assumed  as  extremely  prob- 
able that  it  was  committed  to  writing  by  the  priests,  though  without  excluding 
the  possibility  of  later  supplements.  The  book  of  the  covenant  in  Exodus  and 
what  pertained  to  it,  as  well  as  tlie  Mosaic  legislation  codified  l>y  the  priests,  was 
incorporated  into  the  so-called  fundamental  writing,  (a)  and  this  was  enlarged  by 
the  additions  of  the  Jehovist  (b)  who  elaborated  the  whole.  The  anachronisms 
of  the  Elohistic  fundamental  writing  oblige  us  to  bring  down  its  composition  to 
the  first  centuries  of  the  period  of  the  Judges,  but  not  later.  (Even  Schultz,  p. 
83,  observes  that  he  formerly  maintaineii  the  high  antiquity  of  this  book,  and 
would  be  still  inclined  to  accept  a  greater  age  for  the  narrative  portions  of  the 
book  in  Genesis,  were  it  not  for  the  legal  portions,  which  ()blig(;d  him  to  regard  it 
as,  at  the  earliest,  a  production  of  the  Babylonian  epoch  of  the  prophetic  period.) 
Whether  the  revision  by  the  Jehovist  occurred  ih  the  time  of  tiie  Judges,  or  later 
in  one  of  the  schools  of  the  prophets,  or  what  other  relation  thrre  was,  cannot 
be  determined. 

Against  the  view  expressed  at  present  witli  s|)ecial  positivent ss,  that  on  the  as- 
sumption of  the  institutions  and  conditions  presented  in  the  Pentnteuch  and  the 
book  of  Joshua,  the  state  of  the  peo})le  as  described  in  the  following  books,  and 
especially  the  book. of  .Judges,  is  incomprt'licnsiblp,  it  may  be  replied,  that  the 
theocratic  ordinances  could  never  have  originated  in  the  time  of  the  Judges,  nor 
is  there  a  trace  of  the  founding  of  the  theocracy  by  Samuel  or  David,  while  yet 
David's  ordinances  of  worship  presuppose  the  Tievitical  ordir.ances  in  the  Penta- 


§    16.]       DIVISIONS    OF    O.  T.  THEOLOGY    STATED    AND    JUSTIFIED,  47 

teuch. — That  the  institutions  of  the  Mosaic  law  had  fallen  out  of  use  for  centuries 
and  were  reintroduced  at  a  later  jieriod,  is  attested  by  the  Old  Testament  itself, 
not  only  in  the  books  written  after  the  exile  (comp.  2  Chron.  xxx.  26  ;  xxxv.  18  ; 
xxxvi.  21  ;  Neh.  viii.  17),  but  also  in  2  K.  xxiii.  22,  and  Jer.  xxxiv.  13,  from 
which  last  passage  it  is  clear  that  the  ordinances  in  Ex.  xxi.  and  Deut.  xv.  re- 
specting the  manumission  of  slaves,  had  fallen  into  disuse.  Such  passages  show, 
however,  that  there  was  no  doubt  in  respect  to  the  antiquity  of  the  enactments  in 
question,  and  their  divine  authority.  [Sloreover,  the  consciousness  of  apostasy 
which  pervades  the  entire  history  of  Israel,  and  the  feeling  of  guilt  which  accom- 
panied it,  are  only  explicable  on  the  ground  of  an  anterior  positive  legislation 
which  the  people  constantly  disobeyed.     (Lectures  on  O.  T.  Introduction.) 

A  view  of  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  legislation  in  Deuteronomy  and  the  middle 
books  of  the  Pentateuch  essentiallj^  agreeing  with  that  advanced  above,  is  de- 
fended and  thoroughly  demonstrated,  in  opposition  to  the  construction  of  sacred 
history  in  the  writings  of  Graf  and  Wellhausen,  in  the  work  of  Bredenkamp,  re- 
ferred to  in  §  14I>.  The  contradictions  with  which  the  modern  construction  of 
the  history  of  Israel  is  embarrassed,  and  the  exceeding  arbitrariness,  illogicalness, 
and  false  inferences  on  which  it  rests  are  well  exposed  by  the  author.] 


PART   I.-MOSAISM. 


FIRST    SECTION. 


THE  HISTORY  OF  REVELATION"  FROM  THE  CREATION 
TO  THE  SETTLEMENT  OF  THE  COVENANT  PEOPLE 
m  THE  HOLY  LAND  (1). 

§17. 

DIVISION   OF   THIS    HISTORY. 

The  Pentateuch  plainly  distinguishes  four  periods  in  the  history  of  revela- 
tion— 

1.  The  primeval  age,  with  ten  patriarchs,  closing  with  the  deluge. 

2.  Beginning  with  the  world-covenant  in  Noah's  time  ;  the  time  of  the  division 
of  the  peoples,  by  which  the  separation  of  the  race  of  revelation  is  prepared  ; 
again  with  ten  generations. 

3.  The  time  of  the  three  great  patriarchs,  beginning  with  Abraham's  election, 
and  the  covenant  of  promise  made  with  him  ;  and  ending  with  the  sojourn  of  the 
chosen  people  in  Egypt. 

4.  The  fourth  period  opens  with  the  redemption  of  Israel  from  Egyptian 
bondage  ;  it  includes  the  giving  of  the  covenant  of  the  law,  and  the  establish- 
ment of  the  theocracy,  with  its  regulations  (2). 

(1)  On  the  literature  of  the  history  of  the  old  covenant,  see  my  article,  "  Volk 
Gottes,"  in  Herzog's  Eeal-Encyklop. ,  xvii.  p.  303  tf.,  and  especially  Kurtz,  History 
of  the  Old  Covenant,  i.  §  17  f.     [Kohler,  Lehrhuch  der  hiU.  GescMchte  des  A.  T.  §  2.] 

(2)  These /oz/r  periods,  Oi,  as  Ewald  calls  them,  the  four  ages  of  the  world, 
are  so  distinctly  marked  ofE  in  the  Pentateuch,  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  on  the 
matter. — These  historical  periods  in  the  Pentateuch  have  been  connected  by 
some — as,  for  instance,  by  Ewald  (Hi>itory  of  the  People  of  Israel,  i.  p.  257  f.)  — 
with  the  four  ages  of  the  world,  of  the  Indians,  Persians,  and  Greeks.  But  this 
comparison  cannot  be  carried  out  except  in  the  most  arbitrary  manner. 
(Hesiod's  doctrine  of  the  generations  of  mankind — of  which,  however,  he  counts 
not  four,  but  five  ;  four  named  after  metals,  with  the  generation  of  heroes  added 
to  them,  as  third  in  order — does  not  at  all  rest  on  the  same  basis  with  the  Indian 
doctrine  of  the  four  ages  of  the  world  ;  compare  Rud.  Roth's  thorough  discus- 
sion on  the  myth  of  the  five  generations  in  Hesiod,  and  on  the  four  Indian  ages 
of  the  world,  TilUnger  Universitdtspn'ogr.  1860.)  Max  Miiller  also  has  recently, 
and  with  good  reason,  declared  against  this  combination  m  liis  Essays  ;  although 


50  THE    HiSTOKY    OP    REVELATION.  [§    18. 

we  may  still  admit  that  this  doctrine  of  the  four  ages  is  very  old,  especially 
among  the  Parsees.  Tlic  main  f(^ature  required  to  make  a  valid  comparison  is  not 
found  in  the  Pentateuch— namely,  the  idea  "  of  a  progressive  deterioration  of 
the  times  and  of  mankind  advancing  by  exactly  four  steps,"  which  lies  at  the 
basis  of  those  views  of  heathen  nations.  The  nearest  resemblance  to  those 
heathen  notions  is  the  gradual  shortening  of  human  life  ;  but  in  other  respects 
the  Pentateuch  is  far  from  representing  these  four  ages  as  periods  of  steady 
decay.  On  the  contrary,  it  j^ictures  the  age  of  the  patriarchs  as  the  time  of  the 
ancient  glory  of  the  people  of  Israel  ;  and  so  also  the  time  of  Moses  as  laying  the 
foundation  for  the  whole  development  of  the  Old  Testament  religion. 


I.   THE  PRIMEVAL  AGE    (1). 
§18. 

THE   ACCOUNT   OP   THE   CREATION. 

The  Old  Testament  begins  with  the  account  of  the  creation  of  the  world  (2), 
which  is  the  result  of  the  Word  and  Spirit  of  God.  Since  God  by  His  word  calls 
all  things  into  being,  He  is  placed  above  the  beginning  of  all  time  as  the  eternal 
and  absolutely  independent  One  ;  since  He  animates  the  universe  by  His  Spirit, 
all  dualistic  separation  of  God  and  the  world  is  excluded.  On  the  earth,  which 
is  the  centre  of  the  creation,  so  that  the  other  spheres  are  only  dealt  with  in  con- 
nection with  it  (Gen.  i.  14  ff.),  the  production  of  beings  advances  continually 
toward  higher  organisms  (3)  :  each  step  of  the  creation  is  relatively  complete 
in  itself,  and  serves  in  its  own  way  the  purpose  of  God  in  creation,  as  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  oft-recurring  word,  "  And,  behold,  it  was  good."  Still,  the 
divine  creative  power  is  not  satisfied  till  it  reaches  its  ultimate  end  in  the  creation 
of  man.  Not  till  God  has  placed  His  image  over  against  Him,  does  He  rest  con- 
tent from  creation.  The  creation- SaHbath  stands  as  a  boundary  between  the  crea- 
tion and  the  history  of  the  dealings  between  God  and  man,  and  through  it  we  are 
at  the  same  time  pointed  to  the  connection  ordained  to  exist  between  the  order 
of  the  world  and  the  order  of  the  theocratic  covenant  (compare  also  ver.  14). 
The  paragraph  Gen.  ii.  4  £f.  forms  the  introduction  to  the  history  of  man  ; 
which  paragraph  is  by  no  means  a  second  record  of  creation,  but  shows,  in  sup- 
plementing the  first  chapter,  how  the  earth  was  prepared  for  a  habitation  for  man 
— a  sphere  for  his  activity,  and  a  place  for  the  revelation  of  God  to  man  (4). 

(1)  [A  comparison  of  the  early  history  in  the  Bible  with  the  cuneiform  inscrip- 
tions is  extremely  interesting,  both  on  account  of  their  remarkable  resemblance 
and  their  characteristic  difference.  See  on  this  point  the  work  of  R.  Buddensieg, 
Die  Assyrischen  Aitw/ralungen  u.  das  Alte  Testament,  1880.  The  author  endeavors 
to  observe  a  judicious  mean  between  the  uncritical  enthusiasm  of  some  and  the 
scepticism  of  others  in  regard  to  these  inscriptions.  For  Old  Testament  theology 
the  religious  difference  between  the  biblical  and  the  Babylonian  form  of  the  tradi- 
tions, which  originally  proceeded  from  the  same  source,  is  of  special  importance. 
Says  Buddensieg,  p.  82  f.  :  "What  a  depth  of  divine  thoughts  is  presented  be- 
fore us  on  this  first  page  of  the  Bible  !  What  purity  and  certainty  in  its  view 
of  God  in  comparison  with  the  hcatlicn  accounts  !  The  picture  of  creation  in 
the  Bible  rises  before  us  in  gigantic  majesty  and  the  most    engaging  simplicity. 


§    18.]  ACCOUNT    OF   THE    CREATION.  51 

In  no  otlier  passage,  perhaps,  does  the  incomparable  pre-eminence  of  these  creative 
acts  of  tlie  one  Jeliovah  above  the  confused  and  uncertain  creative  efforts  of  the 
Assyrian  pantheon  so  clearly  appear.  Here  is  the  one  God,  who  unites  in  himself 
everything  divine  which  the  heathen  world  divided  among  its  many  gods.  Here  the 
creation  is  not  a  necessitated  emanation  from  his  essence,  or  from  wild  chaos,  but 
something  brought  into  existence  by  the  free  will  of  the  Absolute  One.  Here  is  an 
ascending  gradation  of  acts  of  creation  to  the  supreme  aim.  This  supreme  aim  is 
not,  as  in  the  Babylonian  account,  one  or  another  concurrent  cause,  not  a  God,  not  a 
new  Lord  of  heaven,  but  an  image  of  God,  "  a  King  of  the  earth,  the  synthesis  of 
Spirit  and  Nature."  We  have  here,  on  the  threshold  of  the  revelation  of  God  to 
men,  a  tradition  of  creation  free  from  mythological  additions  ;  here  the  true  idea 
of  God  is  announced  in  the  midst  of  a  heathenism  sunk  far  and  wide  in  unbelief 
and  apostasy,  and  in  this  announcement  we  have  the  foundation  of  all  true  relig- 
ions and  culture.  In  the  Babylonian  account  of  creation,  a  multitude  of  concep- 
tions concerning  God  and  divine  things  betrays  what  we  may  call  the  childhood 
of  the  people  ;  but  the  creative  agency  of  God,  as  exhibited  in  the  first  chapter 
of  Genesis,  is  so  perfect  that  the  purest  knowledge  of  God  is  unable  to  improve 
upon  it  in  the  least.''] 

(2)  The  naturalist  Cuvier  says  concerning  the  first  words  of  Genesis  :  A  sub- 
limer  passage  than  this  from  the  first  word  to  the  last  never  can  or  will  come 
from  a  human  pen,  "  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth." — 
On  the  meaning  of  the  introductory  chapter  of  Genesis,  without  which  the  whole 
history  of  revelation  would  hang  in  the  air  without  a  beginning,  compalre  the 
thoughtful  remarks  of  J.  6.  Staib  in  a  paper  in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1853, 
p.  823  f.,  ''■Die  Schopfimgsthat  und,  das  Ebeniild,  oder  Genesis  I.,  II.''''  He  says  : 
"  Whence  do  these  chapters  come  ?  I  do  not  know.  There  they  stand,  and  ever 
continue  to  stand,  often  as  it  has  been  attem2)ted  to  explain  them  away  ;  and 
there,  doubtless,  they  will  remain  until  the  end  of  the  world,  until  the  conclu- 
sion of  God's  kingdom  on  earth  joins  hands  with  the  beginning,  and  the  light  of 
the  beginning  will  again  be  recognized  in  the  light  of  the  end,  and  the  light  of 
the  end  in  the  light  of  the  beginning,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all." 

(3)  We  cannot  fail  to  observe  a  parallel  between  the  first  three  and  the  last 
three  days'  work.  The  work  of  the  first  and  second,  the  fourth,  and  fifth  days 
is  single  ;  the  work  of  the  third  and  sixth  is  twofold. 

(4)  On  the  disputed  question,  hoic  the  two  sections.  Gen.  i.  l.-II.  4,  and  that  im- 
mediately following,  are  related,  note  the  following  :  It  is  the  fashion  to  speak  of 
two  accounts  of  the  creation.,  as  standing  irreconcilably  side  by  side  at  the  opening 
of  Genesis.  Admitting  that  the  present  shape  of  Genesis  arose  by  the  re-editing 
of  an  Elohistio  narrative  and  the  addition  of  Jehovistic  passages,  it  must  yet 
appear  most  improbable  that  the  author  w^ould  be  so  silly  as  to  place  at  the  head 
of  his  work  two  contradictory  accounts  of  the  creation.  The  second  account,  in 
fact — if  such  it  were — would  omit  some  of  the  most  essential  points.  It  presup- 
poses that  heaven  and  earth  are  created,  but  as  yet  no  vegetation  exists  ;  and 
then  it  narrates  the  creation  of  man,  relates  how  Paradise  was  planted,  and  tells 
of  the  animal  world.  There  is  wanting  in  this  a  multitude  of  things  necessary 
for  a  complete  account  of  creation.  As  to  the  point  of  divisiofi  o{  the  two  pas- 
sages, I  am  convinced  that  the  words,  ii.  4rt,  nnVin  n7X,  etc.,  belong  to  what 
goes  tefore,  not  to  what  follows.  The  first  section  gives  a  complete  and  well- 
rounded  account  of  the  creation.  Then  follows  a  snjjplementary  section,  whose 
aim,  as  shown  above,  is  not  to  give  another  account  of  creation.  A  difficulty  arises 
here,  simply  because  it  is  thought  necessary  to  seek  in  the  second  account  a 
strictly  chronological  division.  Then,  of  course,  the  second  section  cannot  but  stand 
in  contradiction  to  the  first.  On  this  view,  we  should  have  to  conceive  the  suc- 
cession of  time  thus  :  first,  the  earth  is  bare,  and  nothing  grows  upon  it  ;  then  a 
mist  rises  ;  next  man  is  created,  by  the  breathing  of  the  Divine  Spirit  into  the 
earthly  form.  Then  God  leaves  the  man  for  a  time,  and  plants  a  garden,  and 
causes  trees  to  grow  up  in  it  ;  then  He  fetches  the  man,  and  puts  him  in  it.  But 
he  must  have  other  creatures  about  him  ;  so  God  makes  all  sorts  of  beasts  and 


/ 

52  THE    HISTORY    OF    REYELATIOif.  [§    19. 

birds,  and  brings  them  to  the  man  ;  and  it  is  only  when  among  all  these  the  man 
tinds  no  companion,  that  the  last  step  is  taken  by  the  creation  of  woman.  Not 
much  reflection,  certainly,  could  be  ascribed  to  a  writer  who  could  think  this  to 
be  the  succession  of  the  acts  of  creation.  But  the  real  state  of  the  case  is,  that 
in  the  second  chapter  the  arrangement  is  not  in  the  order  of  time,  but  by  similar- 
ity of  matter,  so  that  whatever  is  introduced  in  elucidation  of  the  progress  of  the 
narrative  is  inserted  just  where  it  is  required.  If  we  were  to  press  the  letter,  the 
question  would  have  to  be  asked,  when  it  is  said  that  man  was  placed  in  Para- 
dise to  keep  it.  Against  whom  was  Paradise  to  be  watched  ?  It  must  have  been 
animals  or  other  such  like  creatures  against  which  the  trees  had  to  be  protected. 
To  sum  up  the  whole,  the  relation  of  the  second  chapter  to  the  tirst,  in  respect  to 
time,  is  this  :  it  starts  from  the  time  which  begins  at  the  end  of  the  second  dafs 
work,  and  commences  here  (with  the  words  0V3,  in.  the  day,  etc.,  ver.  4A)  by  treating 
the  question,  how  the  earth,  upon  which  at  the  close  of  the  second  day's  work  no 
vegetation  had  begun,  was  formed  into  a  dwelling-place  for  man.  But  it  does  not 
proceed  in  the  same  path  as  the  first  chapter  ;  but  because  the  preparation  of  the 
earth  for  man  is  its  main  point,  it  begins  with  this.  It  might  certainly  be  ob- 
jected that  ver.  8  should  have  gone  on  to  say  :  But  God  had  already  also  caused 
plants  to  spring  up,  and  in  this  vegetable  kingdom  He  now  caused  all  sorts  of 
trees  to  sprout  from  the  ground,  and  thus  planted  Paradise.  But  who  can  de- 
mand from  the  author  such  a  detailed  statement  ?  It  is  the  childlike  mode  of  re- 
lating, such  as  we  often  meet  with.  Who  gives  any  one  a  right  thus  to  urge  the 
Wato  consee.  cum  imif.,  and  from  it  to  deduce  a  chronological  contradiction  ?  The 
redactor  of  the  Pentateuch,  who  in  so  many  cases  show^s  his  skill  in  fitting  the 
different  sources  into  each  other,  would  not  have  placed  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Pentateuch  such  plump  contradictions  as  this  would  involve. — Comp.  also  Hole- 
mann,  Neue  Bihel-Studien,  1866,  i.  {Die  Einheit  der  leiden  Schdjfimgsberichte  Oen. 
I.  II.),  with  the  critical  views  of  which  I  do  not  agree,  but  which  nevertheless 
gives  much  matter  that  is  good. — On  the  relation  of  the  biblical  account  of  creation 
to  natural  science,  comp.  F.  W.  Schultz,  {Die  SchopfungsgeschicMe  nach  Natur- 
wissenschaft  iind  Bihel,  1865).  The  fuller  discussion  of  the  Old  Testament  idea 
of  creation  will  be  found  in  the  doctrinal  section,  §  50  f. 

§19. 

THE   ORIGIN   OF   EVIL. 

The  world  as  a  divine  creation  is  good  (Gen.  i.  31)  ;  every  development  of  life 
in  it  is  a  divine  blessing  (i.  22,  28)  ;  there  is  no  room  here  for  a  principle  which, 
in  its  original  nature,  is  wicked  and  inimical  to  God.  It  is  scarcely  possible  to 
find  in  Gen.  i.  2  (1)  an  indication  of  evil  lying  beyond  the  history  of  man  ;  but  it 
is  otherwise  with  the  description  of  the  serpent  in  chap.  iii.  Man  is  called  to  be 
a  free  being  ;  therefore  a  command  is  given  to  him  for  self-decision  (ii.  16),  in 
order  that  he  may  pass  from  the  condition  of  innocence  to  that  of  free  ohedience. 
JVIan  falls  under  the  temptation  addressed  to  him  from  without.  Through  sin 
the  bond  of  childlike  communion  with  God  is  broken  ;  and  now  man  is  in  a  sense 
independent,  like  God  (iii.  22)  ;  but  fear,  resting  in  the  feeling  of  guilt,  dominates 
from  this  time  forward  his  position  toward  God  (iii.  8  ff.)  (2).  The  life  in  Paradise 
with  its  peace  is  forfeited,  and  man  sinks  henceforth  under  the  service  of  per- 
ishal)le  things  and  of  death  (iii.  17  ff.).  Nevertheless  conscience,  which  testifies 
of  guilt,  shows  also  man's  capalility  of  leing  redeemed ;  and  side  by  side  with  the 
curse  a  divine  word  points  forward  (iii.  15)  to  a  victorious  end  to  the  conflict, 
which  the  descendants  of  Adam  are  to  wage  against  the  power  of  evil  (3).     The 


§19.] 


THE    ORiGiN    OF    EVIL.  53 


idea  placed  at  the  opening  of  the  Old  Testament,  that  as  all  evil  which  burdens 
mankind  is  the  result  of  sin,  the  removal  of  evil  can  only  come  h/  the  defeat  of  the 
wicked  one,  is  decisive  for  the  ethical  character  of  the  Old  Testament  religion. 

(1)  In  Gen.  i.  2  an  indication  has  often  been  found  of  a  fall  of  the  spirit-world, 
through  which  terrestrial  creation  was  ruined  ;  and  this  is  added  between  the  ac- 
count in  vers.  1  and  2.  The  earth,  it  is  said,  as  it  was  originally  created  by  God, 
could  not  be  ^nbl  inn  ;  hence  the  present  world  must  have  been  preceded  by 
another,  which  was  destroyed  by  the  fall  of  the  world  of  spirits — a  favorite  idea 
of  the  theosophists.  This  view  cannot  be  exactly  confuted,  but  no  definite  in- 
dication of  any  such  occurrence  lies  in  inbl^  inn.  The  expression  is  perfectly 
suitable,  though  only  a  chaotic  mass  not  yet  developed  is  meant. 

(2)  Genesis  gives  no  theory  of  creation,  no  thesis  on  the  essence  of  si?i,  no 
theory  of  its  origin  ;  but  it  sets  forth,  in  the  form  of  a  story,  a  sin  from  which 
each  one  can  easily  for  himself  develop  the  theory,  and  the  thoughts  involved  in 
the  narrative — thoughts  which  are  decisive  for  the  whole  course  of  revelation.  A 
definition  of  religion  is  not  given  ;  but  the  way  in  which  it  came  about  that  man 
feels  a  dread  and  fear  of  God,  and  that  his  position  toward  God  is  dominated  in 
the  last  instance  by  the  feeling  of  guilt,  is  exhibited  in  a  statement  of  facts. 
With  good  reason  has  K.  I.  Nitzsch,  in  his  Academical  Lectures  on  the  Doctrine  of 
Christian  Faith,  1858,  p.  73,  called  Genesis  the  doctrinal  theology  of  the  law. 

(3)  Gen.  iii.  15  :  "  And  I  will  put  enmity  between  thee  and  the  woman,  be- 
tween thy  seed  and  her  seed  ;  it  sliall  crush  thy  head,  and  thou  shalt  bruise  his 
heel  "  (in  the  second  occurrence  of  ^ycJ  an  easy  zeugma  takes  place).  The  older 
theology  found  in  this  place,  as  is  well  known,  the  npiorov  evajye/uov.  The  lioman 
Catholic  exegesis,  according  to  the  reading  of  the  Vulgate  received  in  that 
Church,  refers  the  words  "  ip>>a  conteret  caput"  to  Mary.  (See  especially  Bel- 
larmiu,  De  verho  Dei,  ii.  12.  This  explanation  was,  in  general,  defended  by  the 
Jesuits  with  the  greatest  zeal  ;  comp.  the  Disputatio  de  protevangelio  in  Glass, 
Philol.  Sacr.  ed.  1743,  p.  1395  ff.,  which  is  directed  against  the  Jesuit  Gordon  of 
Huntley.)  The  older  theology  made  much  of  the  passage,  and  glorified  it  ;  on 
the  other  hand,  it  is  lowered  by  many  of  the  more  recent  theologians  to  the  level 
of  trivial  truth.  It  is  said  to  tell  nothing,  but  that  men  and  serpents  shall  con- 
tinually make  war  on  each  other.  [This  view  is  found  also  in  Hitzig,  p.  140  if., 
who  supposes  that  we  have  here  a  myth  originally  of  Persian  origin,  but  not  un- 
derstood by  "  Hebraism,"  since  on  Hebrew  ground  the  symbol  had  stifled  the 
idea  which  underlies  it.  To  be  sure  the  genesis  of  the  narrative  in  the  mind  of 
the  "  Hebrew  poet"  which  Hitzig  gives,  renders  it  quite  superfluous  to  derive 
the  story  from  Parsism.  We  must  be  permitted  to  marvel  at  the  poverty  of  the 
Hebrew  mind  which  wai  able  to  reach  such  a  shallow  thought  as  Hitzig  here 
finds,  only  by  the  aid  of  a  misunderstood  Persian  myth  ;  and  yet  we  are  to  be- 
lieve that  this  same  mind  gave  birth  to  the  Old  Testament  as  its  natural  product ! 
Even  Baudissin  (i.  291  f.)  comes  to  the  result  that  there  is  no  need  of  bringing 
in  the  very  different  Persian  story  of  Ahriman  fallen  from  heaven  in  the  form 
of  a  serpent,  in  explanation  of  the  serpent  in  the  Garden  of  Eden.  On  the  other 
hand  it  is,  according  to  Buddensieg,  p.  34  ff.,  at  least  possible  that  there  is  some 
connection  with  cuneiform  tradition.]  Such  a  view  overlooks  the  fact  that  the 
words  occur  in  the  sentence  of  punishment  against  the  serpent  ;  it  overlooks  also 
the  difference  between  the  crushing  of  the  head  and  the  wounding  of  the  heel, 
and  the  train  of  thought  in  the  three  divine  sentences.  The  seed  of  the  serpent, 
which  by  cunning  overcame  the  woman,  shall  be  vanquished  in  open  combat  by 
the  seed  of  the  woman.  The  woman,  who  by  temptation  subjected  to  herself  the 
will  of  the  man,  shall  be  in  subjection  to  man  ;  but  man,  who  in  an  unnatural 
way  yielded  obedience  to  the  woman,  shall  in  future  be  master  in  the  household 
only  under  the  condition  of  winning  from  the  ground  by  toilsome  labor  what  serves 
to  support  the  family.  The  close  of  ver.  15  is  related  to  ver.  16  in  tlie  way  that  the 
close  of  ver  16  is  to  ver.  17.     As  ver.  16  closes  with  a  declaration  in  favor  of 


54  THE   HISTORY    OF    REVELATION".  [§    20. 

man,  whicli  is  then  turned  into  a  punishment,  so  in  ver.  15  a  promise  must  be 
found  for  tl)e  woman,  but  wliich,  according  to  ver.  10,  is  accomplished  in  such  a 
way  that  the  woman  receives  in  it  at  the  same  time  her  punishment. — Tlie  older 
llieology  certainly  erred  when  it  sought  to  find  here  the  Messiah,  the  great  de- 
stroyer of  the  serpent,  directly  promised  ;  but  it  did  not  err  in  the  general  con- 
ception of  the  thought  in  the  passage.  In  the  simple  childlike  form,  that  enmity 
shall  Ije  between  man  and  serpent,  the  idea  is  expressed  that  a  struggle  shall  exist 
between  mankind  and  the  principle  of  evil,  and  that  man  shall  carry  away  from 
this  combat  wounds  and  injuries,  while  yet  the  victory  cannot  be  doubtful. 
Thus,  in  a  few  words,  the  whole  course  of  the  development  of  salvation  is  here 
exhibited  in  its  germ  ;  this  is  the  seed-corn  from  which  the  vvhole  history  of  sal- 
vation has  grown. 

§30. 

THE   FIRST   OFFERING.       CAINITES   AND   SETHITES.       TRADITION   OF   THE   FLOOD. 

The  position  henceforth  taken  by  the  human  race  toward  God  is  represented  in 
the  first  offerivg,  Gen.  iv.  (1).  Although  this  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  proper 
sin-offering,  but  rather  as  a  thank-offering,  by  which  the  offerers  acknowledge  in 
})resenting  it  that  they  look  on  the  gains  of  their  occupation  as  a  gift  and  bless- 
ing from  God,  the  feeling  that  man  must  first  of  all  become  sure  (2)  of  the  divine 
favor  is  expressed  in  these  offerings,  and  consequently  a  feeling  of  separation 
from  God,  by  which  the  first  offering  proves  to  be  also  an  offering  of  supplica- 
tion, indeed  even  an  offering  of  reconciliation,  fir,  in  a  wider  sense  of  the  word, 
a  propitiatory  offering  (3).  The  reason  that  Abel's  offering  pleased  God,  and 
Cain's  offering  displeased  Him,  cannot  be  in  the  fact  that  the  former  was  a 
bloody  and  the  latter  a  bloodless  one  ;  for  the  difference  of  the  two  offerings  is 
distinctly  dependent  on  the  differeiice  in  their  callings.  The  reason  can  only  be 
found  in  the  different  states  of  heart  of  the  two  offerers,  which  in  ver.  3  f.  is 
shown  in  the  fact  that  Cain  offers  his  gift  of  the  fruit  of  the  ground  without 
selection  ;  while  Abel,  on  the  other  hand,  brings  the  lest  of  the  flock.  Thus,  in 
this  narrative,  the  Old  Testament  testifies  at  the  outset  that  offerings  when  pre- 
sented as  a  mere  external  service  are  rejected,  and  that  only  a  pious  disjwsition  mahes 
the  offering  tcell-p>leasing  to  God  (comp.  Heb.  xi.  4). — In  the  difference  between 
the  two  sons  of  the  first  human  pair,  we  have  the  contrast  presented  henceforth 
in  the  history  of  the  human  race,  and  already  the  separation  of  a  2^eople  of  revelation 
begins.  For  while  among  Cain's  descendants,  the  life  of  sin  rises  to  insolent  de- 
fiance (iv.  23  f.)  (4),  in  Seth,  who  takes  the  place  of  the  murdered  Abel,  is  prop- 
agated the  race  of  patriarchs  who  seek  the  living  God  (iv.  26)  (5),  among  whom 
Enoch  by  his  translation  testifies  of  a  way  of  life  which  raised  him  above  the  com- 
mon lot  of  death  (v.  24),  and  Lamech  at  the  birth  of  Noah,  before  the  close  of 
the  first  period  of  the  world,  announces  the  hope  of  a  Saviour  of  man  from  the 
evil  weighing  upon  him  (v.  29)  (6). 

After  the  wickedness  of  man  had  reached  its  height  by  the  mixing  of  the  sons 
of  God  with  the  daughters  of  men,  and  the  time  granted  for  repentance  had 
passed  without  result,  the  judgment  of  extermination  was  executed  in  the  Flood, 
from  which  Noah  as  the  righteous  one  (vi.  9)  was  saved,  along  with  his  family. 
The  tradition  of  the  flood  is  found  in  several  religions  of  antiquity  ;  but  in  these 
traditions  each  religion  etiidently  expresses  a  distinct  idea  of  its  own.     For  example, 


§   20.]  THE    FIRST    OFFERING.       TRADITION    OF   THE    FLOOD.  55 

while  the  flood  in  the  Indian  myth  is  only  a  process  of  destruction,  by  which  all 
finite  being  and  life  sinks  back  again  into  this  primitive  source  in  the  divine  sub- 
stance, and  the  man  who  was  saved  from  the  flood  represents  the  inexhaustible  spirit 
of  life, — that  sjDirit  which  overcomes  the  transient,  and  calls  up  a  new  cycle  of  life 
out  of  the  ruin  of  what  existed, — the  flood  in  Genesis,  on  the  other  hand,  is  dis- 
tinctly related  under  the  ethical  point  of  view  ;  it  is  the  Jlrst  judgment  on  tlie 
world  executed  by  the  holy  God,  who,  according  to  Gen.  vi.  3,  will  no  longer  per- 
mit His  spirit  to  be  profaned  by  man's  sin.  But  for  Noah  and  his  family  the 
event  means  that  the  chosen  ones  shall  be  saved  because  of  their  faith  in  the  word 
of  threatening  and  promise  ;  see  Heb.  xi.  7.  So  the  typical  ajjplication  in  1  Pet. 
iii.  20  f.  is  also  to  be  explained  (8). 

(1)  Gen.  iv.  relates  that  the  sons  of  the  first  pair  offered  to  Jehovah,  as  a  gift, 
a  portion  of  the  produce  of  the  business  of  their  life  :  Cain,  from  the  fruits  of  the 
ground  cultivated  by  him  ;  Abel,  from  the  firstlings  of  his  flock,  and  from  the 
fat  pieces  of  these.  Abel's  gift  was  received  with  favor,  but  Cain's  gift  with  dis- 
pleasure. To  understand  the  word  rtj^K?,  [lit.  to  look,  then  to  looh  vpon  with 
favor,  to  have  respect  to\,  with  Hofmann  {Sclirifthcweis,  ii.  1  ;  2ded.p.  220),  of  Jeho- 
vah's glance  of  fire,  by  which  He  took  to  Himself  the  gift  in  consuming  it,  does 
not  agree  well  with  the  words,  "  Jehovah  looked  upon  Abel  and  his  gift,"  for 
we  surely  cannot  suppose  that  Abel  himself  was  struck  by  the  divine  gleam  of 
fire.     (Art.  Opferkultus  des  A.  T.) 

(2)  Cain  himself  feels  this  need,  and  hence  his  sullen  rage  on  seeing  his  offering 
despised. 

(.8)  See  my  article  in  Herzog's  ReaVEnc/yTdo'p.  x.  p.  615  f.,  for  a  fuller  discussion 
of  the  meaning  of  tlie  first  offering,  and  wrong  views  of  it. 

(4)  The  sense  of  the  mng  of  the  sword,  Gen.  iv.  23  f.,  is  :  I  will  kill  any  one 
who  lays  hands  on  me  ;  each  injury  to  my  person  will  I  avenge  tenfold.  [It 
should  be  rendered,  "  For  I  have  slain  a  man  for  my  wound  {i.e.  for  wounding 
me),  and  a  young  man  for  my  bruise. — D.]  "  In  this  is  uttered,"  as  Delitzsch  says 
{Commentary  on  Genesis,  iv.  ed.  p.  177),  "that  Titanic  haughtiness  of  which  it 
is  said,  Hab.  i.  11,  that  his  strength  is  his  God,  and  Job  xii.  6,  that  he  carries  his 
God,  namely  his  sword,  in  his  fist." 

(5)  Gen.  iv.  26  is  to  be  rendered  :  -'  Then  men  began  to  call  on  the  name  of 
Jehovah."  Herein  is  implied  that  God's  name  njri]  goes  back  to  primeval 
antiquity. 

(6)  The  passage  which  refers  back  to  chap.  iii.  runs  thus  :  "  He  shall  comfort 
us  for  our  work  and  the  labor  of  our  hands,  from  the  earth,  which  Jehovah  has 
cursed."  The  passage  manifestly  expresses  a  hope  of  redemption  from  the  curse 
weighing  on  mankind  as  the  consequence  of  sin.  Now,  if  we  may  reason  back- 
ward, it  follows  that  in  chap.  iii.  also  there  must  certainly  lie  a  promise  of  salva- 
tion, although  a  very  indefinite  one. 

(7)  In  connection  with  the  passage  Gen.  vi.  1-4,  comp.  the  didactic  section 
{§  61,  65,  77),  and  the  good  essay  of  Dettinger  :  "  Remarks  on  Gen.  iv.  1-6,  8, 
its  connection,  and  some  of  the  more  difficult  passages  in  it,"  Tiibinger  Zeitschrift 
far    Theol.  1835,  p.  3  ff. 

(8)  With  regard  to  the  controversies  on  the  relation  of  the  Indian  legend  to  the 
Old  'Testament,  I  agree  with  those  who  admit  that  there  are  unquestionably  points 
of  contact  between  the  Indian  myth  and  the  tradition  in  the  Old  Testament,  but 
who  hold  that  the  tradition,  spreading  from  Central  Asia,  reached  India,  and 
was  added  at  a  later  date  to  the  Indian  doctrine  of  the  ages  of  the  world.  [There 
is  much  connection  between  the  biblical  narrative  and  that  of  the  cuneiform  in- 
scriptions. "  The  ethical  factor  in  the  divine  purpose  of  destruction  is  not  en- 
tirely absent,  but  there  are  only  faint  indications  that  the  deluge  was  regarded 
as  occasioned  by  sin."     Tlu;  flood  also  appears  ai4ain   as  brought  about  by  tiie 


1)6  THE   HISTOKY   OF   REVELATIOJST.  [§   21. 

blameworthy  anger  of  the  God  //«.  Biiddensieg,  p.  37  ff.  4G.J  That  the  Old 
Testament  meaning  of  the  flood  is  that  stated  in  the  text  above  is  quite  clear.  If 
Ewald,  in  his  treatment  of  the  matter,  Hutory  of  the  People  of  Israel,  i.  p.  270, 
proposes  to  take  as  the  proper  meaning  of  the  flood,  tliat  it  must  have  come, 
"  in  order  to  wash  clean  the  sin-stained  earth,  to  sweep  away  the  first  race  of  man, 
which  was  utterly  degenerated  in  Titanic  intoxication,  and  to  produce  on  the 
renewed  and  cleansed  earth  a  new  race  made  more  refined  and  Aviser  by  the  warn- 
ing," this  cannot  perhaps  be  excluded,  but  it  is  certainly  not  that  to  which  Gen- 
esis points.  At  tlie  first  glance,  we  might  appeal  in  favor  of  Ewald  to  1  Pet.  iii. 
20  f.,  where  the  flood  is  treated  as  a  type  of  Cliristian  baptism  :  "  In  the  days  of 
Noah,  while  the  ark  was  a  preparing,  wherein  few,  that  is,  eight  souls,  were 
saved  by  water  ;  which  now  also  saves  us  in  the  antitype  as  baptism,  not  as  the 
putting  off  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  as  the  inquiry  of  a  good  conscience  toward 
God."  However,  this  interpretation  is  hardly  correct  ;  the  passage  in  Peter 
rather  "  contemplates  the  water  of  the  flood  as  bearing  the  ark,  and  so  providing 
deliverance  for  Noah  and  his  family"  (so  Fronmiiller  in  Lange's  Commentary). 


II.— THE   SECOND   AGE   OF   THE   WORLD. 
§21. 

COVENANT   WITH   THE    WORLD.       NOAH'S    SAYING.       DIVISION    OP   MANKIND. 

The  second  age  of  the  world  begins  with  the  new  form  taken  by  revelation, 
in  presenting  itself  as  God's  covenant  with  man,  and,  in  the  first  instance,  as  a 
covenant  with  the  tcorld,  in  which  God  gives  to  creation  a  pledge  of  its  preserva- 
tion ;  for  the  order  of  nature  is  the  ground  on  which  the  order  of  salvation  rises. 
God's  faithfulness  in  the  former  is  the  pledge  of  His  faithfulness  in  the  latter. 
Isa.  liv.  9  ;  Jcr.  xxxiii.  20  f.,  25  f.  Sacrifice,  Gen.  viii.  20,  precedes  the  institu- 
tion of  the  covenant,  and  is  in  the  first  place  an  expression  of  thanks  for  the  de- 
liverance experienced,  while  at  the  same  time  man  thereby  approaches  God,  seek- 
ing grace  in  the  future  (1).  The  pre-eminence  of  man  even  in  the  state  of  sin, 
and  his  likeness  to  the  divine  imnge,  is  again  declared,  ix.  4  ff.,  on  which  passage 
(in  connection  with  others)  rests  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  the  Noachic  command- 
ments which  it  claims  to  be  a  basis  for  the  law  before  the  time  of  Abraham  (2). 
The  type  for  the  development  of  the  human  race  is  indicated  in  ix.  25-27.  The 
race  of  Shem,  to  whom  .Jehovah  is  God,  is  chosen  as  the  bearer  of  divine  revela- 
tion ;  on  Japheth  the  blessing  is  conferred  through  Shem  ;  on  Ham,  and  mainly 
on  Canaan,  the  curse  of  slavery  is  to  press  (8).  On  the  other  side,  the  establish- 
ment of  that  tcorld-l-ingdovi,  which  is  at  enmity  with  God,  proceeds  from  the 
Hamites  (x.  8  ff.),  whose  first  seat  appears  to  have  Ijeen  Babel.  Here  begins  the 
distinction  between  the  Irlngdom  of  God  and  the  Mngdom  of  the  tcm-ld  which  runs 
through  the  whole  Bihle.  The  unity  of  the  race  of  man  is  broken  up  into  peoples 
and  tongues  ;  but  while  in  the  view  of  the  heathen  the  diversity  of  peoples  and 
castes  is  original,  and  imiversal  brotherhood  is  to  them  a  chimera  and  to  a  degree 
an  abomination,  and  on  the  other  hand  autochthony  is  the  highest  pride  of  a 
])cople,  Mosaism,  in  its  lixt  of  the  nations  (Gen.  x.)  preserves  the  consciousness  of 


§    21. J      COVENANT    WITH    THE    WORLD.       DIVISION    OF    MANKIND.  57 

the  hlood-relationship  of  all  nations  (comp.  Acts  xvii.  20),  -which  are  again  to  be 
united  in  time  to  come  by  one  blessing  of  God  (comp.  xii.  3,  xviii.  18,  etc.)  (4). 

(1)  More  on  Noah's  offering  in  §  121,  Note  1. 

(2)  The  Noachic  commandments  have  a  historical  importance,  because  it  was 
these  commandments  the  fulfilment  of  which  was  demanded  of  the  so-called 
jnvselytes  of  the  gate,  while  the  proselj'tes  of  righteousness  had  to  keep  the  whole 
ritual  law.  These  seven  commandments,  however,  in  their  later  form  are  a  com- 
paratively recent  invention.  According  to  the  Babylonian  Gemara,  they  were  as 
follows  :  1.  The  proliibition  of  idol-worship  ;  2.  Relating  to  the  blessing  of  the 
divine  name,  and  the  prohibition  of  desecrating  or  cursing  •.  3.  Tlie  prohibition 
of  bloodshed  (Gen.  ix.  6)  ;  4.  The  prohibition  of  incest,  and  fornication  in  gen- 
eral ;  5.  Forbidding  theft  and  robbery  ;  6.  The  command  concerning  the  admin- 
istration of  justice,  investing  the  magistracy  with  divine  authority,  and  forbid- 
ding opposition  to  it  ;  7.  "  Concerning  the  piece  of  the  living,"  that  is,  forbid- 
ding the  use  of  blood  (Gen.  ix.  4).  It  is  well  known  that  the  special  requirement 
of  the  fulfilment  of  these  commands  by  the  heathen  who  joined  themselves  to 
Israel  has  no  Old  Testament  foundation. 

(3)  The  words  of  Noah  on  Gen.  ix.  25-27  are  of  the  greatest  importance  for 
the  conception  of  the  general  history  of  mankind  given  in  the  Old  Testament  : 
"Cursed  be  Canaan;  let  him  be  a  servant  of  servants  to  his  brothers." 
"  Praised  be  Jehovah  the  God  of  Shem  ;  and  let  Canaan  be  his  servant."  "  May 
Elohim  give  enlargement  to  Japheth,  and  let  him  (.Japheth)  dwell  in  the  tents  of 
Shem,  and  let  Canaan  be  their  servant."  The  old  explanation,  often  repeated 
even  in  recent  times,  whicli  takes  OT'^^  as  subject  to  ]^'^'!,  is  out  of  the  ques- 
tion. According  to  our  translation,  the  passage  declares  that  God  is  to  Shem  the 
God  of  revelation,  while  He  is  for  Japheth's  descendants  only  0''»1^?!f,  the  numen, 
Oe'lov,  the  transcendent  Divinity,  but  at  the  same  time  (ver.  27&)  it  points  to  a 
participation  by  Japheth  in  the  blessing  assigned  to  Shem  :  Japheth  shall  dwell  in 
the  tents  of  Shem.  The  ever-recurring  explanation,  which  in  ver.  27  makes  Up  an 
appellative  is  quite  untenable.  Finally,  it  is  often  maintained  that  the  vanquish- 
ing of  the  Shemites  by  Japheth  is  here  foretold  :  God  enlarges  Jajiheth's  terri- 
tory, so  that  he  obtains  dominion  over  the  region  assigned  to  Shem.  Even  on 
this  view,  the  passage  would  be  remarkable,  for  this  has  indeed  come  about. 
But  such  an  exposition  of  the  words  does  not  agree  well  with  the  context.  I  still 
think  it  necessary  to  interpret  the  words  as  speaking  only  of  the  Japhethites 
being  at  home  in  the  tents  of  Shem,  and  gaining  domestic  rights  there,  which  in 
history  has  been  spiritually  fulfilled  in  the  most  glorious  manner. 

(4)  In  relation  to  the  list  of  nations,  note  that  it  is  not  arranged  according  to 
languages  ;  it  is  more  natural  to  find  traces  of  a  geographical  arrangement  of  the 
three  groups  of  nations  in  such  a  way  that  Shem  dwells  in  the  middle,  Japheth 
extends  northward,  and  Ham  more  to  the  south.  But  the  point  of  view  is  decid- 
edly rather  genealogical.  It  is  clear  that  we  are  not  exactly  to  find  individuals  in 
the  names  given.  It  often  happens,  even  in  the  later  genealogies,  that  races  and 
peoples  are  personified  and  represented  as  individuals.  What  is  of  value  for  Old 
Testament  theology  in  the  register  of  nations  is  what  is  brought  forward  in  the 
text.  With  this  list  the  book  of  Genesis  takes  leave  as  it  were  of  mankind  in 
general,  and  revelation  henceforth  limits  itself  to  a  single  chosen  race.  The  reg- 
ister of  nations  is  intended  to  keep  in  memory  the  original  brotherhood  of  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth.  This  is  a  thought  beyond  the  reach  of  all  antiquity,  with 
the  exception  of  Israel.  Among  the  cultivated  Greeks  it  was  not  till  the  time  of 
Alexander  the  Great,  and  chiefly  through  Stoicism,  that  the  idea  of  a  common 
world-citizenship  of  man  found  expression  ;  for  the  antithesis  of  Greeks  and  bar- 
barians was  invincible.  When  the  Apostle  Paul  preached  on  the  Areopagus, 
Acts  xvii.  26,  "  Hp  made  of  one  blood  every  nation  of  men  to  dwell  on  all  the 
face  of  the  emth,"  lie  attacked  the  very  heart  of  heathenism  and  Athenian  pride. 


58  THE   HISTORY    OF    REVELATION".  [§    '22. 

§23. 

THE   FOUNDATION   OF   A   PEOPLE   OF   GOD. 

In  order  to  give  an  historical  basis  to  the  work  of  salvation,  a  people  is  to  be 
chosen  as  the  bearer  of  revelation,  to  which  coming  people  (comp.  Deut.  xxxii. 
8),  God  already  has  regard  in  the  dividing  of  the  nations  (1).  The  separation  of 
a  race  of  revelation  is  prepared  in  Shem's  descendants,  the  line  going  through 
Arphaxad,  that  is  (on  any  explanation  of  the  name)  through  the  Chaldean 
stem,  and  further  through  Eber,  a  name  which  certainly  had  originally  a  wide? 
meaning  [than  merely  the  ancestor  of  the  Hebrews],  (comp.  Gen.  x.  21,  xiv.  13),  on 
to  Terah  (2).  Of  manifestations  of  revelation  nothing  is  as  yet  said  ;  but  a  simple 
monotheism  is  preserved,  which  is  easily  seen  to  be  the  oldest  foundation  even 
of  the  religion  of  the  heathen  Semites.  In  connection  probably  with  the  mighty 
moving  of  the  nations  at  that  period  the  Terahites  leave  the  ancestral  dwelling- 
place  of  the  Chaldeans  in  Nortliern  Assyria,  and  wander  first  to  Haran  in  North 
Mesopotamia  (xi.  31).  Here,  where  (see  Josh.  xxiv.  2,  comp.  with  Gen.  xxxi. 
19,  XXX.  35)  (2)  idolatry,  designated  as  the  worship  of  Teraphim,  begins  to  break 
out  even  in  this  family,  the  basis  of  the  Old  Testament  dispensation  is  laid  by  the 
calling  of  Abram  (Gen.  xii.  1),  who  closes  the  second  decade  of  patriarchs. 
While  the  nations  of  the  earth  walk  in  their  own  ways,  in  which  they  develop 
their  natural  peculiarities,  an  everlasting  people  is  to  be  founded  in  Abram's  de- 
scendants (comp.  Isa.  xliv.  7),  which,  in  its  peculiar  national  type  is  to  be  not  a 
product  of  natural  development,  but  of  the  creative  power  and  grace  of  God 
(Deut.  xxxii.  6),  and  which  forms,  agreeably  to  this,  a  contrast  to  the  mass  of 
nations  of  the  world  (D'i-I,  Wvr]),  though  in  such  a  way  that  already  the  oblitera- 
tion of  this  contrast  is  kept  in  view  (comp.  §  82).  It  is  only  in  this  idea  of  the 
peoj)le  of  God  that  the  key  is  given  to  the  Old  Testament  history,  which  would 
otherwise  remain  an  insoluble  riddle.  A  natural  predisposition  for  the  religion 
of  the  Old  Testament  can  be  recognized  in  the  Semites  ;  but  revelation  claims 
something  more  than  simply  to  have  developed  an  already  existing  natural  dis- 
position, or  only  to  have  filled  a  natural  form  with  the  contents  of  divine  life  (3). 
What  belongs  to  the  character  of  God's  people  was  already  prefigured  in  the  his- 
tory of  their  forefathers. 

(1)  Deut.  xxxii.  8  :  "  When  the  Most  High  divided  to  the  nations  their  in- 
heritance, when  He  separated  the  children  of  men,  He  set  the  boundaries  of  the 
nations  according  to  tlie  number  of  the  children  of  Israel."  This  refers  to  the 
division  of  the  nations  in  Gen.  xi.  The  Iiabiniiical  exegesis  makes  the  passage  to 
mean  that,  as  Israel  went  down  into  Egypt  in  number  seventy  souls,  so  also,  ac- 
cording to  the  register  of  nations,  seventy  dJ  are  to  be  counted  on  the  earth. 
This  is  certainly  not  the  sense  of  the  passage,  but  it  must  be  taken  as  follows  : 
When  God  assigned  to  the  peoples  of  the  earth  the  territory  where  they  were  to 
develop  themselves.  He  had  in  view  the  place  which  His  chosen  people  should 
afterward  possess  (according  to  their  number)  in  order  to  fulfil  their  historical 
calling. 

(2)  With  respect  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  ntyp3"^X,  it  is  a  question  whether 
it  means,  as  some  take  it,  the  boundary  or  territory  of  the  Chaldeans,  or  the  high 
land  of  the  Chaldeans,  or,  as  Ewald  puts  it,  the  Chaldean  stronghold.  At  any 
rate,   the  name  D'"!^?   is  in  the  word  ;  and   we   have,   accordingly,  to   regard 


§  22.] 


FOUNDATION    OF    A    PEOPLE   OF    GOD.  59 


the  Chaldean  race  as  Abraham's  ancestors.— The  descent  from  the  Chaldeans  is 
through  "15J^.  The  LXX.  viewed  this  name  as  an  appellative  (Gen.  xiv.  13, 
where  they  translate  the  word,  TvepdT?}^),  and  thus,  I  think,  it  is  to  be  understood  ; 
it  is  the  personification  of  the  Chaldean  races  who  cross  the  Euphrates,  and 
therefore  are  called  in  Canaan  the  people  from  the  other  side.  [Schrader,  in 
Riehm's  Haiidwvrteriuch,  Art.  "  Chaldaer, "  takes  the  ground  that  the  Bab^'lonian 
Chaldees,  who  were  Semites,  as  their  literary  productions  show,  have  nothing  to 
do  with  the  Armenian  Chaldees,  or  Kurds,  who  were  of  Aryan  or  Indo-European 
origin.  They  dwelt  in  the  part  of  Babylonia  previously  occujiied  by  the 
Accadians. — D.j 

(3)  Our  time  gives  itself  to  the  study  of  the  natural  peculiarities  of  nations 
{psycliology  of  nations),  and  especially  of  the  peoples  of  antiquity.  Here  the 
question  arises,  how  the  peculiarities  of  the  people  of  Israel  can  be  understood  as  a 
product  of  the  national  spirit  of  the  Semites.  To  this  subject  belong  a  number 
of  observations  in  Lufisen'' s  Indian  Antiquities ;  in  the  works  of  Renan,  partly 
in  his  Histoire  generale  et  systeme  compare,  des  langues  Semitiques,  partly  in  the 
"  Nouvelles  considerations  sur  le  caractere  generale  des  peuples  Semitiques," 
etc.,  in  the  Journ.  Asiat.  1859,  iii.  ;  Gustav  Baur,  in  his  History  of  Old  Testament 
Prophecy,  i.  1861  ;  Diestel,  on  "  The  Idea  of  the  People  of  Israel,"  in  the  Monat- 
schrift  fiir  die  evang.  Kirche  der  Rheinprovim,  1851  ;  also,  in  particular,  Grau, 
Semiten  und  Indogermanen,  1864,  and  others.  Now  there  is  ho  question  that  the 
peculiarities  of  the  people  of  Israel  proceeded  from  the  common  natural  soil  of 
the  Semitic  race.  We  find,  to  take  a  single  example,  the  following  explanation 
of  the  way  in  which  the  Semitic  and  the  Indogermanic  character  differ,  given  by 
Gustav  Baur  :  The  contrast  between  the  Indogermanic  and  the  Semitic  peculiarity 
of  mind  is  to  be  traced  back  to  the  difference  between  a  predominantly  objective 
and  a  predominantly  subjective  tendency.  The  characteristic  feature  of  the  Se- 
mitic character  is  the  energetic  concentration  of  the  subjectivity  in  the  inmost 
ground  of  the  Ego,  and  in  this  lies  {ut  stipra,  p.  134)  a  natural  predisposition  for 
the  Old  Testament  religion. — This  is  hitherto  the  best  statement  of  the  case,  and 
certainly  does  indicate  a  peculiarity  of  the  Semitic  race.  The  history  of  religion 
offers,  in  truth,  interesting  parallels  to  the  Old  Testament  religion,  in  the 
sphere  of  the  heathen  religions,  which  confirm  what  Gustav  Baur  says.  I  would 
wish  specially  to  point  out  also,  that  in  the  Semitic  heathenism  the  view  of 
the  Divinity  as  a  legislative  power  predominates  ;  for  the  Star-gods  of  the  heathen 
Semites  are  not  represented  merely  as  life-giving  powers,  but  also  as  powers  that 
rule  life.  Further,  the  idea  of  the  Divinity  as  a  jealous  power,  to  which  on 
man's  side  corresponds  the  human  defiance  which  rebels  against  God,  is  peculiar 
to  Semitic  heathenism.  This  haughty  Semitic  defiance  of  God  is  prominently 
seen  in  the  character  of  Israel's  neighbors,  Edom  and  Moab  (comp.  the  pictures 
in  Obad.  3  ;  Isa.  xvi.  6)  ;  even  in  the  way  that  Job  is  depicted  we  may  find  a 
genuine  Semitic  trait  of  character,  and  to  this  corresponds  the  tough,  defiant, 
natural  force  which  lived  in  Israel  :  comp.  Isa.  xlviii.  4,  "  Thy  neck  is  a  sinew 
of  iron,  and  thy  brow  is  brass."  The  Old  Testament  in  a  multitude  of  passages 
pointsoiit  in  the  natural  character  of  the  people  qf  Israel  an  obstinate  self-will 
striving  against  the  divine  will.  But  it  is  quite  a  different  question  whether  the 
Old  Testament  religion  is  to  be  regarded  purely  as  a  natural  growth  of  this  Semitic 
character,  and  whether  monotheism  is  a  fundamental  characteristic  of  the  whole 
Semitic  race.  On  the  latter  question  we  have  a  thorough  investigation  by  Dies- 
tel, "The  Monotheism  of  the  oldest  Heathenism  specially  of  the  Semites,"  in 
the  Jahrhiieh.far  Deutsche  Theol.  1860,  p.  669  ff.  His  answer  to  this  inquiry  is  in 
the  negative,  and  no  wonder  ;  for  to  what  data  must  we  principally  ajipeal  ?— to 
such  merely  as  are  very  modern  in  comparison  with  the  antiquity  of  the  human 
race,  or  even  with  the  age  of  the  patriarchs.  The  Old  Testament  itself  remains 
the  best  source  ;  and  here,  undeniably,  an  original  monotheism  presents  itself,  al- 
though one  of  a  quite  simple  character.  With  this  we  also  have  to  connect  such 
leatures  as  the  remarkable  story  of  Melchizedek,  presently  to  be  spoken  of.  In 
^Ofcial  connection   with  Abraham's  ancestors,  we  are  distinctly  told  in  the  Old 


60  THE    HISTORY    OF    REVELATION.  [§    23. 

Testament  that  false  worshij)  had  already  become  familiar  to  them  ;  but  this  does 
not  exclude  the  continued  existence  of  monotheistic  religion.  Hengstenberg 
strikingly  refers  {Ilistory  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  i.  p.  120),  in  relation  to  the  tera- 
phim,  to  Gen.  xxxi.  53,  compared  with  vers.  I'J  and  30.  In  the  first  passage 
Laban  swears  by  the  "  God  of  Abraham  and  the  God  of  Nahor,  the  God  of  their 
father."  Here  is  evidently  presupposed  a  common  God  for  Abraham's  race, 
which  had  emigrated  to  Canaan,  and  for  the  branch  of  Terah's  family  which  re- 
mained in  Mesopotamia.  But  Laban  designates  the  teraphim  as  /;/«  gods.  By 
these  inferior  gods  we  must  understand  a  sort  of  Penates.  Thus  a  monotheistic 
worship  may  well  be  regarded  as  preceding  the  peculiar  Old  Testament  religion, 
previous  to  Abraham. 

[Comji.  also  the  interesting  work  of  F.  Hommel,  Die  Semiten  uvd  ihre  Bedentung 
filr  die  KuUurgeschichte,  18S1,  ]).  27  f.  In  opposition  to  the  view  taken  by  many, 
that  not  only  were  the  Semites  generally  polytheists,  but  also  that  the  religion  of 
Jehovah  was  developed  from  a  polytheistic  religion,  he  maintains  that  Assyri- 
ology  has  taken  away  the  main  props  of  the  idea  of  the  original  polytheism  of  the 
Semites,  in  the  evidence  it  furnishes  that  most  of  the  gods  hitherto  considered  as 
purely  Semitic  are  of  Sumero-Accadian  and  not  of  Semitic  origin.  To  be  sure  we 
may  in  turn  infer  with  Schultz  (p.  107),  from  the  fact  that  the  Semites  easily  ac- 
cepted the  Accaciian  myths  and  the  Pantheon  of  the  Ghaldeau  priests,  that  they 
had  no  antipathy  to  Polytheism.  Schultz's  view  is,  *'  the  unity  of  God  was  not  be- 
lieved ;  but  little  interest  was  taken  in  the  plurality  of  divine  powers  conceived  of 
as  independent.  The  God  to  whom  j^rayer  was  addressed,  or  who  was  conceived 
of  as  specially  connected  with  an  individual  tribe,  becomes  distinctly  prominent 
in  the  religious  life."  Accordingly  we  may  speak  at  least  of  a  tendency  first  to 
Henotheism,  and  then  further  to  Monotheism  in  the  Semitic  religion.] 

But  now,  is  the  Old  Testament  religion  a  further  and  natural  development  of 
the  germ  that  already  lay  in  the  religion  of  the  forefathers  ?  This  can  be 
affirmed  only  under  considerable  limitations.  The  view  that  the  Old  Testament 
dispensation  is  a  natural  production  of  the  religious  genius  of  the  people  of  Israel 
must  be  absolutely  rejected.  Against  this  the  whole  Old  Testament  furnishes  the 
most  decided  testimony,  presenting  to  us  in  a  multitude  of  facts  in  Israel's  his- 
tory the  distinction  between  the  divine  principle  of  life  and  the  natural  constitu- 
tion of  the  race  of  revelation,  and  developing  the  difficulties  arising  therefrom  ia, 
the  divine  education  of  the  people.     See  §  5,  note. 


III.    THE   TIME   OF   THE   THREE   PATRIARCHS. 

§  33. 

ABRAHAM    (1). 

Obedient  to  the  divine  call,  Abram  leaves  Mesopotamia,  accompanied  by  Lot, 
the  ancestor  of  the  Moabites  and  Ammonites,  to  go  to  Canaan,  which  is  already 
(Gen.  xii.  6)  possessed  by  the  tribes  bearing  this  name.  In  solemn  revelation  God 
closes  with  him  the  covenant  of  promise  (chap,  xv.),  in  an  act  not  exactly  to  be 
characterized  as  a  sacrifice,  but  onlj'^  meant  to  symbolize  the  gracious  condescension 
of  the  covenant-instituting  God  (comp.  §  80).  On  this  follows,  on  the  side  of 
Abram,  the  taking  upon  himself  the  obligations  of  the  covenant  through  fircwmcj's- 
?fl?i  (chap.  xvii.).  J'Aree^oi/i.f's  are  contained  in  the  promises  given  to  Abram  (xii.  2 
f.,  7,  xiii.  15  f.,  18,  xvii.  5-8,  xviii.  18,  xxii.  16-18)  (2)  1.  The  land  in  which  he 
himself  continues  all  his  life  a  stranger  (xii.  6),  and  where  he  must  even  buy  a  place 


§    23.]  ABRAHAM.  61 

for  his  grave  (xxiii.  4,  comp.  Acts  vii.  5),  is  to  be  given  for  an  eternal  possession 
to  his  descendants  (3).  3.  He  who  remains  childless  till  his  old  age  shall  have 
an  innumerable  posterity^  which  is  guaranteed  by  the  changing  of  his  name  into 
Dn'i^N  [father  of  a  multitude]  ;  and  not  Ishmael,  the  son  of  Hagar,  who  was  bora 
after,  the  counsel  of  man  (chap,  xvi.),  but  Isaac,  born  contrary  to  the  ways  of 
nature,  according  to  God's  counsel  (Rom.  ix.  8),  is  to  be  the  bearer  and  inheritor 
of  the  promise  (4).  3.  The  seed  of  Abraham  shall  be  made  a  hlessing  for  all  races 
and  all  nations  of  the  earth  (5).  Still  the  electing  grace  of  the  covenant  God, 
who  calls  Himself  El-Shuddal  [the  Almighty  GodJ,  (xvii.  1)  as  a  witness  of  His 
controlling  power  in  the  natural  world,  is  met  on  Abraham's  side  (xv.  6)  hj  faith, 
which  does  not  look  at  the  course  of  nature,  but  holds  fast  to  God's  word  of 
promise  (comp.  Rom.  iv.  18  ;  Heb.  xi,  8-19),  and  endures  victoriously  the  severest 
test  in  his  willingness  to  offer  the  son  of  the  promise  (Gen.  xxii.).  In  this  faith, 
which  is  reckoned  to  him  for  righteousness,  Abraham  the  friend  of  God  (Isa.  xli. 
8  ;  Jas.  ii.  23)  is  the  prophet  (Gen.  xx.  7),  to  whom  is  granted  insight  into  the 
divine  counsel  (xvii.  17  :  "  Shall  1  hide  from  Abraham  what  I  am  about  to  do  ?") 
when  Sodom  reels  onward  to  judgment,  and  who  has  the  privilege  of  free  access 
to  God  in  prayer  (xviii.  23  ff.,  xx.  17).  Nay,  he  becomes  the  father  of  all  be- 
lievers (Rom.  iv.  ;  Gal.  iii.),  and  his  name  stands  at  the  head  of  the  three  mono- 
theistic religions  of  the  world,  even  when  looked  at  in  a  purely  historical  way. 
But  this  knowledge  of  the  divine  way  is  to  be  accompanied  by  a  walking  therein 
(Gen.  xvii.  1).  Moreover,  according  to  Gen.  xviii.  19,  Jehovah  "  acknowl- 
edged," that  is,  chose,  Abraham,  "  that  he  might  command  his  sons  after  him  to 
keep  Jehovah's  ways,  doing  justice  and  right,  that  Jehovah  might  bring  upon 
Abraham  all  that  He  has  said  of  him"  (6).  Accordingly  the  character  of  God's 
people  is  ethically  determined  from  the  first,  and  the  passage  (xviii.  19)  shows  that 
not  all  natural  descendants  belong  to  the  true  sons  of  Abraham  and  the  heirs  of 
the  promise. — On  the  relation  of  the  religion  of  the  "patriarchs  to  the  surrounding 
heathenism,  the  narratives  in  Gen.  xiv,  18-22  and  chap.  xxii.  shed  the  most  impor- 
tant light.  In  the  former  passage  containing  the  story  of  Melchizedek,  King  of  Salem, 
the  type  of  a  priesthood  not  inherited  by  bodily  descent,  but  resting  on  the 
dignity  of  the  person  (Ps.  ex.  4  ;  Heb.  vii.),  we  find  a  recognition  of  the  identity 
of  the  God  of  Abraham  and  the  Canaanite  El-elyon  (7).  The  second  narrative 
has  apparently  an  historical  reference  to  the  Canaanitish  offerings  of  children.  "We 
must  note  here,  that  while  it  w^as  Elohim  who,  according  to  ver.  1,  tempted 
Abraham  to  offer  his  son,  it  is  Jehovah  who  (ver.  11  ff.)  hinders  the  sacrifice,  ap- 
proves the  devotion  that  is  willing  to  offer  up  the  most  beloved  one,  and  com- 
mands the  substitution  of  the  sacrificial  animal  (8). 

(1)  That  the  whole  history  of  the  patriarchs  has  a  typical  character,  has  been 
generally  acknowledged  from  the  time  of  the  Apostle  Paul  to  our  own  day,  and 
the  only  question  is  as  to  the  theological  and  religious  meaning  of  these  Old  Tes- 
tament types.  Philo,  from  his  philosophical  standpoint,  interprets  the  symbolism 
and  types  of  the  patriarchal  times  as  follows  :  Abraham  is  the  symbol  of  the 
human  spirit  who  wandered  out  from  Haran,  the  place  of  sensual  desires,  to  Ca- 
naan, the  home  of  the  spirit.  For  the  rest,  Abraham  is  to  him  the  type  of  acquired 
virtue,  Isaac  of  innate  virtue,  and  Jacob  of  virtue  won  by  practice,  etc.  Side  by 
side  w^ith  this  we  place  Ewald's  very  superficial  explanation  in  his  History  of  the 
People  of  Israel,  i.  p.  291  f.     According  to  him,  a  circle  of  twelve  examples  is*  here 


62  THE    HISTORY    OF    KEVELATIOlf.  [§    23. 

brought  before  us  in  seven  fundamental  relationships.  1.  In  the  three  patri- 
archs, the  pattern  of  the  father  of  a  family  is  represented  ;  2.  In  Sarah,  the  pat- 
tern of  the  mother,  and  in  Hagar  that  of  the  concubine  ;  3.  In  Isaac,  the  pattern 
of  the  child  ;  4.  In  Isaac  and  Rebecca,  the  pattern  of  right  betrothal  and  marriage 
(but  Rebecca  deceives  her  husband  !)  ;  5.  In  Leah  and  Rachel,  the  patterns  of  a 
wife  beside  one  less  loved  ;  6.  In  Deborah,  the  pattern  of  a  nurse  of  heroes  ;  7. 
In  Eliezer,  the  pattern  of  the  house-servant  or  house-steward. — If  we  follow  out 
the  traits  which  the  noble  delineation  of  patriarchal  life  presents  to  us,  according 
to  the  guidance  of  the  New  Testament,  the  result  seems  to  be  what  we  have 
given  in  the  text. 

(2)  In  regard  to  the  three  parts  of  the  promise  given  to  Abraham,  note  that  if 
we  divide  Genesis  into  an  original  Elohistic  writing  and  a  Jehovistic  supjilement, 
the  verses  which  contain  the  third  part  of  the  promise  belong  to  the  Jehovistic 
sections.  This  has  also  an  internal  ground,  in  so  far  as  God  in  this  covenant 
promise  has  especially  to  approve  Himself  as  niH',  as  faithful  to  His  covenant. 

(3)  It  is  certainly  not  without  meaning  that  throughout  the  Old  Testament  the 
completion  of  the  divine  kingdom  hinges  on  the  land  which  was  granted  to 
Abraham,  not  by  a  right  of  nature,  but  by  grace.  Even  prophecy  knows  no  final 
fulfilment  of  the  divine  promise,  in  which  this  old  promise  of  eternal  possession 
of  the  Holy  Land  does  not  come  true.  Here,  I  am  convinced,  is  a  fundamental 
error  of  Hengstenberg's  exegesis,  when  he  absolutely  will  not  admit  in  his  spirit- 
ualizing interijretations  that  this  is  fixed  as  an  essential  and  enduring  feature  of 
the  divine  promise.  However  we  may  judge  of  this  matter  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  New  Testament — I  do  not  enter  on  this  dispute — from  the  standpoint  of 
the  Old  Testament  it  must  be  maintained  that,  from  the  beginning  of  the  found- 
ing of  the  covenant  people  to  the  close,  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  and  the 
completion  of  the  divine  kingdom  attaches  to  the  holy  land  of  Canaan.  [But 
the  question  still  remains  whether  this  may  not  be  the  farm  of  thonght  under 
which  the  higher  spiritual  truth  is  conveyed.  See  Fairbairn,  Tyiiology  i.  p.  450- 
453.— D.] 

(4)  It  is  to  be  noticed  how  the  Old  Testament,  from  the  first  origin  of  the 
race  of  revelation,  is  careful  to  distinguish  between  a  race  of  revelation  Kara 
cdpKa,  and  /card  Trvev/ia  to  which  the  promise  is  given.  "We  have  already  seen  in 
the  case  of  Abraham  that  the  idea  in  Rom.  ix.  8,  Ov  ra  resva  t?/c  aapKoc,  rnvra 
TEKva  rov  Gfov,  aXXa  ra  reKva  T7)g  kTTayye7daQ  T^oyiZerai  e'lg  anep/ua  is  expressed  in  the 
clearest  manner.  This  appears  not  only  in  the  fact  that  not  Ishmael,  the  son 
begotten  by  human  design,  but  Isaac,  becomes  the  bearer  of  the  promise,  and 
again  in  the  clioice  of  Jacob  and  the  passing  by  of  Esau  ;  but  also  very  distinctly 
in  the  conditions  which  are  laid  down  for  the  attainment  of  the  promises. 

(5)  The  expression,  "  They  shall  Mess  tJiemselres  in  Abraham's  seed,"  can  only 
mean.  They  shall  wish  for  themselves  the  blessing  of  revelation  which  Abraham 
has,  and  oUain  it  through  the  race  of  Abraham.  The  passages  are  taken  by 
modern  exegesis  to  mean  that  they  shall  wish  to  be  as  happy  as  Abraham  ;  but 
this  is  refuted  by  Jer.  iv.  2,  D'U  U  D"^3nni,  where  "13  refers  to  Jehovah.  |Schultz 
also,  p.  678  ff.,  finds  in  the  passages  in  question,  primarily  only  the  thought, 
"  wherever  among  the  nations  a  blessing  pronounced  is  received,  there  Abra- 
ham and  his  posterity  shall  be  mentioned  as  the  ideal  of  blessing  from  God." 
But  even  if  this  Niphal,  '3"13J,  in  Gen.  xii.  3,  etc.,  is  taken  not  in  the  passive, 
but  in  the  reflexive  sense,  it  is  not  certain  from  this  alone  that  his  view  is  cor- 
rect. The  main  question  is,  how  the  preposition  3  is  to  be  rendered.  If  now  in 
Gen.  xlvii.  20,  the  Piel  3  ':il3  evidently  means  to  bless  with,  "  to  wish  the  bless- 
ing of  some  one,"  the  linguistic  possibility  of  understanding  the  Hithpael  as 
related  to  Niphal  to  mean  "  to  wish  for  oneself  the  blessing  of  some  one,"  can- 
not be  doubted.  It  is  equally  certain  that  in  Jer.  iv.  2  we  must  translate  : 
"  they  shall  bless  themselves  in  him,  (Jehovah)  i.e.  expect  from  him  salvation  and 
blessing  (cf.  Graf's  Commentar.  s.  1.)  and  so  Is.  Ixv.  16.]  What  sense  would  there 
be  in  t^ie  explanation,  that  they  should  wish  for  themselves  a  happiness  sucli 
as  Jehovah  has  ? 


§   23.]  ABRAHAM,  63 

(6)  Gen.  xviii.  19  has  often  been  wrongly  explained.  We  must  not  translate, 
"  For  I  hnow  of  him,  that  he  will  command,"  etc.  The  |i?P7  can  never  have  the 
meaning  of  the  Greek  un,  which  would  necessarily  be  '3  ;  but  the  I'^'  stands  in 
the  pregnant  sense,  which  will  be  discussed  more  fully  in  the  didactic  section 
(§  81),  according  to  which  it  is  a  mark  of  the  divine  npoyvuaiq. 

(7)  On  Gen.  xiv.  18-23. — Salem  is  without  doubt  Jerusalem,  which  is  called 
Salem  in  Ps.  Ixxxiv.  3  ;  it  is  not  a  Salim  farther  north,  as  some  modern  critics 
think.  It  is  no  proof  that  the  original  name  was  not  Salem,  that  Jerusalem  in 
the  time  of  the  Judges  ajjpears  under  the  namo  of  Jebus,  for  it  received  the  name 
Jebus  from  the  Jebusites  wlio  were  settled  there  ;  and  here  we  may  note  that 
the  king  of  Jerusalem  who  is  met  with  in  Josh.  x.  1-3  is  also  called  Adonizedek. 
[See  Art.  Melchizedek  in  Rielun.J  It  is  a  point  of  special  importance,  that  there 
is  manifestly  an  acknowledgment  of  the  God  whose  priest  Melchizedek  is,  in  the 
way  in  which  Abraham  does  homage  to  Melchizedek.  Melchizedek  is  called 
priest  of  j"!  /J^  /^,  who  appears  later  among  the  Phoenicians  as  Saturn.  Abra- 
ham receives  a  blessing  from  this  priest,  and  gives  him  the  tenth  of  the  booty. 
Certainly  he  distinguishes  in  a  way  (ver.  22)  his  God  Hiri'  from  the  p^'^i'  '^,  but 
yet  their  identity  is  acknowledged.  We  have  here  therefore  traces  of  an  older, 
purer  monotheism  on  Canaanitish  ground,  which  is  at  first  sight  remarkable, 
because  elsewhere  the  relation  of  the  Old  Testament  God  to  the  Canaanitish 
religion  is  sharply  antagonistic.  But  here  Movers'  researches  come  in,  Phanicler, 
ii.  1,  p.  105,  in  the  most  interesting  manner.  It  is  there  sliown  that  the  worship 
of  El  or  Kronos  goes  back  to  another  origin  than  that  of  the  Phosnician  Baal,  to 
which  the  Phoenician  polytheism  is  attached,  and  that  the  former  worship 
belonged  specially  to  the  Giblites  in  Byblus  and  Berytus,  who  are  always 
definitely  distinguished  from  the  Phoenicians.  We  may  maintain  therefore,  with 
the  greatest  proliability,  that  we  find  here,  in  the  midst  of  the  Canaanitish  relig- 
ion, a  remnant  of  an  older  and  purer  religion,  Avhich  was  perhaps  preserved  by  a 
Semitic  race  dwelling  among  the  Canaanites.  For  I  at  least  am  confident  that 
the  Old  Testament,  with  its  derivation  of  the  Canaanites  from  Ham,  is  a  higher 
authority  than  most  newer  critics.  [It  may  be  correct  that  this  El-Elyon  was 
brought  to  Canaan  under  Semitic  influence,  even  if  his  identification  witli  Kronos 
should  fail  to  be  established,  and  he  were  rather  identical  with  Adonis,  as  Bau- 
dissin  thinks  probable,  1.  p.  36,  216,  298  ff. ;  for  the  latter  also  is  according  to 
J).  300  f.,  identical  with  the  Accadian-Babylonian  Tammuz.J 

(8)  On  Gen.  xxii. — Scarcely  any  part  of  the  Old  Testament  has  been  so  much 
used  as  a  proof-text  by  those  dreamers  who  think  that  human  sacrifice  was  origi- 
nally a  characteristic  of  the  Old  Testament  religion,  while,  on  the  contrary,  the 
tendency  of  the  story  leads  directly  to  the  excluding  of  human  sacrifice  from 
Jehovah-worship.  This  has  been  well  observed  by  Evvald.  But  this  does  not 
remove  the  difficulty,  that  the  God  who  will  not  have  human  sacrifice,  neverthe- 
less, at  first,  tempts  Abraham  to  offer  his  son.  It  was  Schelling  who,  in  his 
Philosophi/  of  Revelation,  ii.  p.  122  ff.,  first  definitely  pointed  to  the  significant 
change  of  the  names  of  God  in  this  liistory.  The  chapter  is  a  striking  proof  of 
how  little  is  accomplished  by  an  artificial  dissection  of  Genesis  according  to  the 
names  of  God.  The  chapter  is  joined  together  like  cast-iron,  and  we  cannot  cut 
anything  out  of  it.  Formerly,  before  the  importance  of  the  change  of  the  namrs 
of  God  was  taken  notice  of,  it  was  customary  to  have  recourse  to  the  cheap  aid 
of  interpolation.  But  how  is  this  change  to  be  understood  ?  Schelling  (I.e.) 
argues,  that  the  God  who,  after  the  flood,  uttered  the  words,  "  I  will  avenge 
the  life  of  man  at  the  hand  of  each  man,"  cannot  be  the  same  who  demanded 
from  Abraham  the  life  of  his  own  son  ;  that  the  principle  that  tempted  Abraham 
to  that  action  was  essentially  the  same  as  induced  the  nations  of  Canaan  to  sacri- 
fice their  children  ;  and  that  in  the  Old  Testament  the  true  God  is  reached 
through  the  false,  and,  as  it  were,  b mnd  to  him. — But  against  this  view  it  is 
quite   conclusive  that,  in  ver.  1,  not  t  i  ■  indefinite  D'H^^;?  without  the  article,  but 


G4  THE    HISTORY    OF    REVELATION.  [§    24. 

D'mXri,  is  chosen  for  the  tempting  God. — Hengstenberg  and  others  adopt 
a  dilfcrent  explanation.  In  his  Hldory  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  lie  puts  the 
matter  thus  :  "  Jeliovah  commanded  Abraham  to  offer  up  Isaac  ;  he  was  ready 
to  make  this  sacritice,  but  understood  the  command  in  the  same  sense  as  if 
Moloch  had  said  to  liim,  '  Thou  shalt  sacritice  Isaac,'  whereas  the  rnode  of  offering 
was  intentionally  not  more  precisely  tixed.  The  misunderstanding,  although 
proceeding  from  xlbraham  and  falling  to  his  accoimt,  was  nevertheless  willed  by 
God." — Kurtz,  in  his  History  of  the  Old  Covenant,  i.  p.  203,  seems  to  have  given 
the  right  explanation.  He  says  :  Abraham  must  have  been  conscious  that  the 
way  that  led  to  the  perfecting  of  his  faith  was  the  way  of  renunciation  and  self- 
denial.  The  sight  of  the  Canaanite  sacrifices  of  children  must  have  led  Abra- 
ham to  self-examination,  whether  he  would  be  strong  enough  in  renunciation  and 
self-denial  to  do  what  those  heathen  did,  if  his  God  desired  it  from  him.  But  if 
this  question  was  once  made  the  subject  of  discussion  in  Abraham's  heart,  it  had 
also  to  be  brought  to  a  definite  and  real  decision.  Tliat  was  the  substratum  for 
the  divine  demand  in  Abraham's  soul.  Objectively,  the  following  are  the  de- 
ductions from  this  point  of  view  :  The  culminating  point  of  worship  in  the  relig- 
ions of  nature  was  human  sacrifice.  The  covenant  religion  had  to  separate  itself 
in  this  respect  from  heathenism  ;  the  truth  in  it  had  to  be  acknowledged,  and 
the  falsehood  denied.  In  the  command  to  offer  up  Isaac,  the  truth  of  the  con- 
viction that  human  life  must  be  sacrificed  as  an  unholy  thing,  is  acknowledged  ; 
and  by  the  arresting  intervention  of  God,  the  hideous  distortion  of  this  truth 
which  had  arisen  in  heathenism  is  condemned  and  rejected.  ^ — If  we  look  at  Deut. 
xiii.  3,  where  it  is  said  that  God  will  prove  the  people  by  false  projihets,  it  is  not 
necessary  for  us,  in  expounding  Gen.  xxii.  1,  to  suppose  any  misunderstanding 
on  Abraham's  part  ;  but  it  seems  to  me  that  the  matter  is  best  explained  by  look- 
ing at  it,  with  Kurtz,  in  the  light  of  an  educational  command. — Comp.  also  on 
the  Value  of  History  for  the  Development  of  the  Old  Testament  Idea  of  Sacrifice, 
§  121,  note  1. 

§34. 

ISAAC   AND   JACOB. 

Very  little  is  recorded  of  the  life  of  Isaac  ;  he  walked  in  the  footsteps  of  his 
father,  and  the  divine  promises  given  to  the  latter  were  renewed  to  him  (Gen. 
xxvi.  2-5).  Of  his  twin-sons  w^as  chosen,  as  bearer  of  the  promise,  not  Esau, 
who  had  the  advantage  of  birthright,  but 'iva  ?)  /car'  EK'koyyv  TrpoOeaig  tov  Bfoi; 
/lEVTj  (Rom.  ix.  11),  Jacob,  the  second-born  son.  The  fundamental  thought  con- 
nected with  the  divine  guidance  of  Jacob's  life  is,  that  in  spite  of  all  human 
hindrances,  the  divine  counsel  reaches  its  goal,  and  that  even  human  sins  must 
serve  for  its  realization,  although  they  are  punished  none  the  less.  By  the  sin  of 
Jacob  and  his  mother,  Isaac's  purpose,  which  was  in  opposition  to  the  promise 
to  Jacob  (Gen.  xxv.  23),  is  thwarted  ;  yet  Jacob's  sin  is  visited  on  liim  (1)  in  the 
straits  he  experienced  in  his  wanderings  (xxvii.  42  f.),  which  were  occasioned  by 
his  artifice  against  Esau,  and  particularly  in  the  sorrows  afterwards  prepared  for 
him  by  his  sons,  when  he  who  had  practiced  deception  must  himself  in  like 
manner  be  deceived.  The  covenant  promise  given  to  him  at  the  beginning  of  his 
journey  to  Mesopotamia,  in  the  theophany  at  Bethel,  in  order  to  strengthen  him 
for  the  years  of  exile  (xxviii.  10  II.),  is  confirmed  at  the  same  place  on  his  return 
(xxxv.  9  ff.),  after  he  has  gained  for  himself  and  his  race  in  the  night-long 
wrestling  at  Jabbok,  which  forms  the  turning-point  of  his  life,  the  new  and  holy 
name  of  hracl,  characteristic  of  his  divine  calling  (xxxii.  24  ff.).     The  primary 


I   25.]  THE  TWELVE   PATRIARCHS.  Go 

meaning  of  this  story  is,  tliat  Jacob,  whose  courage  fails  before  his  brother,  and 
the  reward  of  whose  wiles  threatens  to  be  lost  at  one  blow,  is  shown  how  man, 
despairing  in  his  guilt,  must  wrestle  out  his  cause  with  God,  but  that  when  he 
has  gained  the  blessing  from  God,  he  has  no  more  to  be  afraid  of  from  any  man. 
At  the  same  time,  Jacob's  combat,  when  he  first  wrestles  with  lodily  strength,  is 
perhaps  a  picture  of  the  perverseness  of  his  former  life,  in  which  he  believed 
himself  to  be  able  to  force  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  by  the  continual  use  of 
carnal  means,  and  had  made  it  difficult  enough  for  the  divine  leadings  to  become 
master  of  him.  His  becoming  lame  is  then  meant  to  show  that  God  does  not 
permit  Himself  to  be  forced  by  natural  strength.  But  then  Jacob  becomes  vic- 
torious by  the  tceajjon  of  2n'ayer  (comp.  Hos.  xii.  4  f.).  As  the  natural  character 
of  Jacob,  the  intriguing  holder  of  the  heel — the  tough,  shrewd  man — prefigures 
the  natural  character  of  the  nation  that  descended  from  him,  so  the  spiritual 
character  of  God's  people  is  prefigured  (3)  in  /i!?"3ti7\  the  wrestler  with  God. 

(1)  It  is  a  great  error,  particularly  of  popular  handbooks,  that  it  is  thought 
necessary  to  canonize  the  wily  intrigues  of  Jacob  and  his  mother  related  in 
Genesis.  The  attempt  to  justify  such  conduct  goes  against  the  conscience  of  a 
child.  But  such  a  treatment  of  the  history  of  Jacob  rests  on  a  gross  misunder- 
standing of  that  which  Genesis  itself  teaches  us  as  to  the  divine  leading  of  Jacob. 
The  text  shows  wherein  lies  the  doctrinal  value  of  this  history. 

(2)  On  Gen.  xxxii.  24  ff. — To  the  insipid  mockery  which  the  despisers  of  the 
Bible  are  so  ready  to  pour  out  on  this  story  we  pay  no  attention.  Tiie  story 
has  been  properly  appreciated  even  from  a  free  point  of  view  by  Herder,  and 
afterward  in  particular  by  Umbreit  ("  Der  Busskampf  Jacobs,"  Studien  und 
Kritiketi,  1848,  p.  113  ff.).  It  is  common,  especially  in  the  practical  use  of  the 
passage,  to  limit  oneself  to  seeing  in  Jacob's  struggle  a  symbol  of  wTestling  in 
prayer,  which  does  not  become  wearied  until  it  wins  the  blessing.  So  also 
Auberlen  in  the  article  "  Jacob,"  in  Herzog's  Jieal-Enajkhp.  vi.  p.  876  f.  I  can- 
not share  this  view,  and  agree  with  Kurtz's  conception  {History  of  the  Old  Cove- 
nant, i.  331),  according  to  which  a  double  wrestling  must  be  distinguished  in  the 
manner  given  in  the  text. — Hengstenberg  turns  the  story  into  a  visional  oc- 
currence. 

§25. 

THE   TWELVE   PATRIARCHS. 

In  the  twelve  sons  of  Jacob  is  given  the  basis  of  the  covenant  people  destined  to 
jDOSsess  the  land  of  Canaan  (1).  Nevertheless,  a  long  period  of  expectation  in 
exile  and  slavery  is  first  prescribed  (comp.  Gen.  xv.  13  ff.)  to  Jacob's  descend- 
ants. The  execution  of  the  divine  decree  is  introduced  by  the  providential  his- 
tory of  Joseph,  who  is  raised  to  the  helm  of  the  Egyptian  state  to  be  the  deliverer 
of  his  people,  after  a  long  trial  of  his  faith,  in  which  his  earlier  vanity  was  to  be 
humbled  (comji.,  for  the  religious  value  of  the  history,  especially  xlv.  5-8,  1.  20). 
Israel  must  a  second  time  turn  his  back  on  the  promised  land,  although  with  a 
renewal  of  the  promises  received  (xlvi.  2ff.)  (2).  Jacob  dies  in  Egypt  after  having 
predicted  the  future  of  the  tribes  descending  from  his  sons,  in  his  prophetic 
blessing  (chap,  xlix.),  which  looks  far  beyond  the  time  in  which  his  descendants 
continue  strangers.  The  twelve  tribes  are  here  portrayed,  partly  according  to 
their  place  in  theocratic  history,  and  partly  according  to  their  geographical  rela- 


Q6  THE   HISTORY    OF   REVELATIO]Sr.  [§   25. 

tionship,  while  at  tlie  same  time  Jacob's  v/ords  rest  on  ethical  and  psychological 
considerations.  But,  according  to  the  Old  Testament  view,  the  blessing  and 
curse  of  parents  are  not  magic  spells  possessing  in  themselves  the  power,  ascribed 
to  them  in  heathenism,  to  set  in  motion  forces  of  blessing  or  vengeance  ;  they 
have  force  only  so  far  as  they  serve  the  divine  decrees,  which  may  be  fulfilled, 
according  to  circumstances,  in  a  quite  different  sense  from  that  intended  by  him 
who  blesses  or  curses.  (This  is  shown  in  Isaac's  blessing,  chap,  xxvii.)  Among 
the  twelve  Joseph  is  especially  prominent,  who  (comp.  xlviii.  5)  is  to  become  a 
mighty  double  tribe  in  his  two  sons  Manasseh  and  Ephraim,  of  whom  the  latter 
is  preferred,  although  he  is  the  younger  (xlviii.  14  ff.)  Nevertheless  it  is  not  to 
him  that  the  sovereignty  is  promised  ;  nor  to  Reuben,  the  first-born  son,  who  is 
declared  to  have  forfeited  his  birthright  by  the  shameful  deed  which  he  had 
formerly  committed  ;  nor  to  Levi,  who  was  afterwards  highly  honored  (comp.  in 
particular  Deut.  xxxiii.  8  ff.),  but  whose  dispersion  in  Israel,  which  was  subse- 
quently connected  with  his  high  calling,  is  uttered  as  a  curse  (Gen.  xlix.  7)  (3). 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  Judah  who  is  specially  chosen  as  the  bearer  of  the  prom- 
ise, and  who  is  characterized  as  he  upon  whom  that  dominion  over  the  nations 
shall  rest,  to  which  xxvii.  29  already  pointed.  Compare  1  Chron.  v.  2,  according 
to  which  passage  the  birthright,  the  "Tji^l,  is  Joseph's  portion  in  the  shape 
of  a  double  inheritance  (comp.  §  106);  but  out  of  Judah  is  to  come  the  TJJ,  the 
prince  of  Israel  (4).  In  making  provision  for  the  place  of  their  burial  (xlvii.  29 
ff.,  comp.  1.  4  ff.),  Jacob,  and  afterward  Joseph  (1.  25  f. ;  comp.  Heb.  xi.  22), 
testify  their  faith  in  the  divine  promise.— In  the  covenant  of  promise  with  the 
three  patriarchs  rests,  for  the  consciousness  of  the  people  of  Israel,  the  guaran- 
tee of  the  gracious  and  holy  guidance  of  the  people  (comp.  Ex.  ii.  24  ;  Deut.  iv. 
37,  vii.  8,  viii.  8,  18,  etc.).  Hence,  in  the  Old  Testament  stage  of  revelation, 
God  is  called  the  Ood  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  (Ex.  iii.  6,  15  ;  comp.  1 
Kings  xviii.  30,  Ps.  xlvii.  10). 

(1)  That  there  are  twelve  tribes  is  explained  by  the  Old  Testament  from  the 
number  of  the  sons  of  Jacob,  which  gives  no  trace  of  any  other  derivation  than 
the  genealogical  one  [Art.  "  Stamme  Israels,"  in  Herzog.  1st  ed.]. 

(2)  In  connection  with  the  references  to  Egypt,  Ebers'  work,  EgT/pt  and  the 
Books  of  Moses,  of  which  as  yet  only  the  first  volume  is  published,  1868  [an- 
nounced as  soon  to  appear  in  an  English  translation],  is  worthy  of  all  praise.  It 
contains  very  important  information  on  archaeological  and  historical  matters. 
Comp.  also  Hengstenberg,  The  Books  of  Moses  and  Egypt,  1841,  and  the  Art. 
"  Joseph"  in  Herzog's  2d  ed.,  by  Orelli. 

(3)  Gen.  xlix.  7  :  "  Cursed  be  their  wrath,  because  it  was  so  fierce  ;  and  their 
fury,  because  it  was  grievous  :  I  will  divide  them  in  Jacob,  and  disperse  them 
in  Israel."  Compare  Kurtz,  History  of  the  Old  Covenant,  i.  p.  339  f.,  in  elucidation 
of  the  treacherous  and  bloody  act  of  vengeance  executed  by  Levi,  for  the  dis- 
honor of  his  sister  Dinah,  on  the  Shechemites,  who  were  first  made  defenceless. 

(4)  Gen.  xlix.  is  a  crux  inter^rretum.  In  respect  to  the  passage  as  a  whole  I 
share  neither  the  view  of  some  who  see  here  a  testament  written  down  with  the 
exactness  of  a  notary,  nor  the  widespread  view  wliich  regards  it  as  the  produc- 
tion of  a  later  poet. — For  this  [supposed  later]  poet,  in  whatever  age  we  place  him, 
comes  into  conflict  with  some  parts  of  the  ])oem.  Particularly  what  is  said  con- 
cerning Levi,  whose  race  ocupied  a  position  of  eminence  from  the  time  of  Moses 
onward,  neither  agrees  with  the  time  of  the  Judges,  nor  with  the  time  of  David 
or  Solomon,     But  in  ver.  10  it  is  claimed  there  is  a  clear  indication  that  the 


§25.] 


THE  TWELVE    PATRIARCHS.  6? 


chapter  was  written  in  the  time  of  the  .Judges.  Sliiloh  is  tliere  taken  to  menu 
tlie  town  of  that  name  in  Ephraim,  and  the  passiige  is  rendered  :  "  until  lie 
comes  to  Shiloh,"  where  the  sanctuary,  the  centre  of  the  theocracy,  was.  But  if 
the  poem  is  of  this  age,  the  principate  which  it  assigns  to  Judah  is  irreconcil- 
able with  historical  data  in  the  time  of  the  Judges.  It  becomes  necessary  to  ex- 
tend and  emphasize  in  an  unjustifiable  manner  the  circumstance  that  Judah  went 
at  the  head  of  the  people  in  the  war  of  conquest,  in  order  to  justify  what  is  said 
of  him.  If  we  are  to  speak  of  a  principate  of  any  tribe  in  the  time  of  the 
Judges,  we  should  rather  name  the  tribe  of  Ephraim  in  the  midst  of  which  at 
one  time  actually  a  kingdom  was  set  up  in  Shechera.  [Schultz,  in  his  review 
already  cited,  pronounces  the  value  of  this  book  to  be  very  much  impaired  by 
its  making  use  of  a  narrative  ''  which,  for  example,  does  not  hesitate  to  attribute 
the  blessing  of  Jacob  to  the  patriarch  himself."  And  in  his  Old  Testament 
Theology,  p.  667,  he  adds,  "  No  one  who  understands  the  nature  of  prophecy  will 
doubt  for  a  moment  the  character  of  these  utterances."  His  principal  reason  is 
that  these  utterances  are  to  a  great  extent  of  no  importance  for  the  present  and 
future  of  most  of  the  tribes.  But,  if  they  were  really  so  unimportant  for  the 
tribes,  how  did  they  ever  come  to  be  placed  in  the  mouth  of  the  honored 
patriarch  ?  This  fact  is  an  evidence  that  "  these  unimportant  geographical  and 
statistical  notices"  were  not  so  unimportant  in  the  view  of  the  Israelites,  as  our 
modern  scholar  is  pleased  to  regard  them.  These  "  notices"  contained  what  en- 
tered very  deeply  into  the  life  of  a  tribe.  Schultz  himself  afterward  says  that 
the  present  sufferings,  joys,  and  hopes  of  the  tribes  became  predictions  which  were 
placed  in  the  mouth  of  their  dying  ancestor  Israel.  See  the  remarks  of  Orelli  in 
answer  to  Schultz,  in  the  Art.  "  Jacob"  in  Herzog,  vi.  p.  443,  and  the  view  of 
Bredenkamp,  p.  172  f. :  "  by  the  utterance  concerning  Levi,  the  authenticity  of  the 
blessing  is,  to  every  candid  mind,  inviolably  signed  and  sealed."] — Any  one  who 
really  goes  deeper  into  the  intellectual  habits,  not  only  of  Israel,  but  of  Eastern, 
and  indeed  of  all  antiquity,  will  not  be  satisfied  with  the  view  that  a  later  poet 
sits  down  and  writes  a  poem  which  he  puts  in  the  mouth  of  the  father  of  the 
nation  ;  on  the  contrary,  we  certainly  find  in  the  old  world  a  real  tradition  of 
such  words  of  blessing  and  cursing,  uttered  by  the  fathers  concerning  their  de- 
scendants, and  such  utterances  influence  the  fortunes  of  the  latter  in  a  very  intel- 
ligible way.  I  cannot,  therefore,  take  any  other  view  of  Jacob's  sayings,  than 
that  the  father  of  the  tribes  divided  the  inheritance  and  characterized  each  of 
the  sons,  and  that  this  testament  of  the  father  continued  to  live  in  the  mouth  of 
the  tribes.  The  antique  character  of  the  sayings  is  shown  by  the  peculiar  animal 
symbols — Dan,  the  serpent  ;  Miphtali,  the  gazelle,  etc. — sayings  which  could  not 
have  been  called  forth  by  the  poetry  of  a  later  age,  but  only  by  the  simple  pas- 
toral life  of  the  patriarchs. — "With  regard  to  the  theological  meaning  of  these  say- 
ings, it  is  taught  by  this  blessing,  that  in  the  divine  kingdom  things  do  not  oc- 
cur in  the  way  of  nature,  but  according  to  divine  choice.  Neither  he  who  should 
have  taken  the  lead  by  right  of  birth,  nor  yet  the  father's  darling,  is  called  to 
stand  at  the  head  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  Since  ethical  and  psychological  con- 
siderations appear  in  many  points  of  what  is  said  concerning  the  several  tribes — 
when,  as  Herder  has  so  beautifully  expressed  it,  Jacob's  "  mind  is  strengthened 
from  heaven  to  note  the  slumbering  destiny  in  the  soul  of  his  sons,  and  to  open 
this  hidden  book  in  their  separate  traits  of  character  and  action" — we  may  ask  if 
there  is  not  also  something  of  the  same  kind  in  the  case  of  Judah,  the  fourth  son 
according  to  age,  but  now  placed  first.  In  the  text  it  is  not  expressly  brought 
forward.  In  the  designation  of  .Tudah  as  a  lio?i  we  may  perhaps  find  a  reference 
to  his  noble  nature.  But  the  passage  Gen.  xliv.  32  f.  may  be  cited,  where  Judah 
presents  himself  as  surety,  to  go  to  prison  or  to  bondage  for  his  brother  Ben- 
jamin that  he  may  be  free.  It  is  hardly  to  be  regarded  as  forced  to  discern  a 
divine  fitness  in  the  fact  that  Judah  was  to  be  the  ancestor  of  Him  who  presented 
Himself  as  surety  for  all. — The  much-discussed  passage  concerning  Shiloh  will 
be  treated  of  on  a  subsequent  page  (§  229). 


68  The:  Histoky  op*  kevelatioK.  [§  26. 


IV.   FOURTH   AGE,    THE   TIME    OF   MOSES   AND    JOSHUA. 

I.  THE   DELIVEKAKCK   OP   ISRAEL   FROM   EGYPTIAN   BONDAGE. 

§  26. 

Condition  of  the  People  of  Israel  in  Egypt. 

At  the  close  of  the  time  of  the  patriarchs,  the  biblical  account  passes  silently 
over  a  long  period,  in  which  Israel  grows  up  into  a  people.  For  that  quiet  pro- 
cess of  increase  by  which  the  families  grew  into  a  nation  offered  nothing  which 
the  people  could  remember  as  historically  important  (1).  The  Old  Testament 
gives  the  following  intimations  of  the  condition  of  the  people  in  Egypt.  In  part 
they  seem  to  have  kept  to  the  pastoral  life  of  their  fathers  in  Goshen  ;  they  may 
have  wandered  from  there  into  the  stretch  of  land  on  tlie  eastern  boundary,  since 
the  obscure  passage  1  Chron.  vii.  21  is  probably  to  be  connected  with  an  occur- 
rence taking  place  during  the  stay  of  Israel  in  Egypt  (2).  From  Num.  xxxii.  we 
conclude  that  the  two  tribes  of  Reuben  and  Gad  gave  themselves  to  cattle-breed- 
ing. But  speaking  generally,  the  people  who  were  settled  in  fixed  residences, 
and  partly  even  in  towns,  must  have  already  begun  an  agricultural  life  (comp. 
Ex.  i.  14,  Num.  xi.  5,  Deut.  xi.  10).  As  the  Egyptians  and  Israelites  lived  to- 
gether (Ex.  iii.  22,  xii.  33  ff.),  the  jieople  could  not  have  remained  unaffected  by 
the  Egyptian  ct<Zi(wc, which  was  at  that  time  already  very  far  advanced  (8).  The 
political  oi'ganization  of  thej)eople  had  developed  itself  in  a  genealogical  way,  which 
corresponds  to  the  natural  character  of  the  Semites,  who  are  characterized  by 
strong  family  and  tribal  attachment.  The  people  (according  to  iii.  16)  are  repre- 
sented by  the  eldeis  (D'JpT),  who  were  probably  taken  from  the  heads  of  families. 
Besides  this,  the  people  were  under  D'TCJii',  [A.V.  officers,  lit.  writers'],  who  in 
like  manner  were  taken  from  their  own  body,  but  were  themselves  subordinate 
to  Egyptian  overseers  (v,  6  ff.)  (comp.  §  98).  "With  regard  to  the  religious  con- 
dition of  the  nation,  we  find  that  among  the  mass  of  the  people  the  remembrance 
of  the  God  of  their  fathers,  and  of  the  promises  given  to  them,  had  to  be  re- 
awakened. The  purer  worship  of  God  which  we  find  among  the  patriarchs  had 
been  displaced  by  idol-worship,  as  may  be  concluded  partly  from  express  testi- 
mony (Josh.  xxiv.  14  ;  Ezek.  xx.  7  ff.,  xxiii.  8,  19),  and  partly  from  the  idol- 
worship  to  which  the  people  gave  themselves  during  their  wanderings  in  the  wil- 
derness. The  worship  of  the  calf  at  Sinai,  Ex.  xxxii.,  is  to  be  explained  as  an 
imitation  of  the  Egyptian  worship  of  Afis  or  Mnevis ;  the  service  of  he-goats 
(CT'i'i?')  mentioned  in  Lev.  xvii.  7  points  to  the  service  of  Mendes  (the  Egyptian 
Pan  ;  Herodotus,  ii.  46).  The  service  also  of  the  fire  god  Moloch  or  Milcom, 
which  was  spread  in  the  lands  bounding  Egypt  on  the  east,  must,  as  is  shown  by 
the  rigid  prohibition,  Lev.  xviii.  21,  xx.  2,  have  even  at  that  time  penetrated 
among  the  people.  As  this  idol,  who  is  essentially  the  jealous  power  of  nature, 
forms  the  heathen  caricature  of  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  the  *<3p  7X  [the  jealous 
God],  the  mixing  of  his  worship  with  the  service  of  Jehovah,  mentioned  in  Amos 
V.  26,  is  more  easily  understood  (4).  All  this  shows  that  during  the  stay  in 
Egypt  the  foundation  was  laid  of  the  commingling  of  religions  which  appeared 


26.] 


CONDITION   OP   THE    PEOPLE   OF   ISRAEL   tN    EGYPT.  09 


in  different  forms  in  the  following  centuries,  and  wliich  was  in  general  character- 
istic of  Israel,  which  never  was  independently  productive  in  polytheistic  forms  of 
worship. 

(1)  It  may  seem  strange  that  we  have  so  considerable  a  Mank  in  the  history 
between  Genesis  atul  Exodus,  and  that  the  long  period  of  time  from  Jacob's  going 
down  into  Egypt  and  his  death,  and  until  Moses'  birth,  is  passed  silently  over. 
But  simple  tribal  life,  such  as  we  must  suppose  Israel's  to  have  been  in  those  cen- 
turies, forms  no  history.  What  sort  of  a  history  had  the  Arabians  in  the  thousand 
years  previous  to  Mohammed  ?  But  beside  this,  Israel  has  no  history  generally 
except  so  far  as  it  is  the  organ  of  revelation.  How  full  of  blanks  is  the  historical 
account  of  the  centuries  in  the  time  of  the  Judges,  on  account  of  the  broken  state 
of  the  theocratic  life  !  and  how  little  do  we  know  of  the  exile,  which  yet  belongs 
entirely  to  the  historical  time  !  or  of  the  centuries  from  Ezra  to  the  Maccabees, 
and  beyond  them  !  It  is  the  peculiarity  of  Israel  to  possess  history  and  historical 
literature  in  the  full  sense  of  the  words  only  in  proportion  as  it  realizes  its  voca- 
tion in  the  history  of  the  world. 

(2)  In  1  Chron.  vii.  21,  according  to  the  most  likely  explanation  of  the  ambig- 
uous passage,  an  incursion  of  the  Ephraimites  on  Gath  is  recounted,  starting,  it  is 
supposed,  from  the  southern  highlands  of  Canaan.  The  older  view,  that  an  oc- 
currence in  the  time  of  the  stay  in  Egypt  is  spoken  of,  and  not,  as  Bertheau  and 
others  tliink  (understanding  Ephraim,  ver.  22,  as  the  whole  body  of  the  tribe),  an 
occurrence  belonging  to  the  post-Mosaic  time,  has  at  least  the  wording  of  the 
passage  in  its  favor.  Comp.  also  Kurtz,  The  History  of  the  Old  Covenant,  ii.  p. 
178  [and  Kohler  i.  p.  166]. 

(8)  It  is  a  mistake  to  regard  the  Israelites  at  their  exodus  from  Egypt  as 
a  rude  race  of  nomads,  in  whom  we  may  not  presuppose  even  the  smallest  be- 
ginnings of  culture.  They  appear  in  the  Pentateuch  tis  an  unmanageaUe,  but  not 
as  an  uncultivated  people.  While,  for  example,  to  take  a  single  illustration,  the 
Pentateuch  gives  no  trace  of  the  art  of  writing  in  the  time  of  the  patriarchs,  this  is 
presupposed  as  employed  among  the  people  when  they  went  out  of  Egypt,  as  the 
name  of  their  functionaries  which  were  taken  from  tlie  people  shows — they  were 
D'")D!iJ',  that  is,  writers.  In  Egypt,  indeed,  as  is  shown  by  the  monuments, 
writing  was  at  that  time  a  thing  long  in  use. 

(4)  It  is  not  long  since  it  was  the  fashion  to  think  tliat  the  original  worship  of 
Israel  was  the  worship  of  Saturn,  or,  as  Saturn  was  identified  with  Milcom,  the 
service  of  Moloch  (comp.  Vatke,  Ghillany,  Daiuner,  and  others). — It  certainly 
cannot  be  denied  that  this  idolatrous  worship  belongs  to  that  ancient  period  ;  it 
belongs  to  the  oldest  time  and  to  the  youngest,  and  after  disappearing  for  cen- 
turies, becomes  prominent  again  after  the  time  of  Ahaz  ;  and,  as  is  stated  in  the 
text,  there  is  a  certain  connection  betw^een  Moloch  and  *<Jp  /^  [the  jealous  God], 
as  the  Holy  One  of  Israel  is  called,  only  with  the  difference  that  the  latter  is  an 
ethical  power,  the  former  a  consuming  natural  power,  which  must  be  reconciled 
by  human  sacrifice.  But  to  represent  what  the  Old  Testament  condemns  as  the 
true  foundation  of  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  is  a  piece  of  arbitrariness  such  as  has 
often  defaced  the  treatment  of  the  Old  Testament.  [Against  the  entire  view  that 
the  Israelitish  monotheism  was  developed  from  a  lower  stage  of  natural  religion, 
see  the  Art.  "  Gotzendienst"  in  Riehm]. — The  much  discussed  passage,  Amos  v. 
26,  must  not  be  understood  as  foretelling  something  future,  asEwald  explains  it : 
"  So  then  ye  shall  lift  up  the  pale  of  your  king,  and  the  scaffold  of  your  images," 
referring  to  the  carrying  of  the  idols  into  captivity.  Against  this  is  the  fact  that 
this  kind  of  worship  is  not  mentioned  as  existing  in  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes. 
The  proper  explanation  is  :  "  Ye  bore  the  tal)ernacle  of  your  king  and  the  pillar 
of  your  images"  [or  better,  since  the  names  of  Kewan  and  Sakkuth  are  found  as 
gods  in  the  cuneiform  inscriptions,  to  regard  these  words  as  proper  names,  and  to 
render,  "  Sakkuth  your  king  and  Kewan  your  image."  See  Bredenkamp,  p. 
87  f.],  etc.,  that  is,  during  the  wandering  in  the  wilderness. 


to  THE   rtlSTORY    OP    ]U:VELATIO]Sr.  j"§   St. 

§27. 
The   Course  of  the  Deliverance  from  Egypt. 

The  deliverance  from  Egypt  is  thus  related  in  the  book  of  Exodus.  To  prevent 
the  extraordinary  increase  of  the  people  which  excited  their  apprehensions,  the 
Egyptians  burdened  the  people  with  intolerable  tasks,  and  at  last  the  royal  decree 
went  forth  that  all  the  new-born  boys  should  be  killed.  In  this  deepest  humili- 
ation, in  which  the  people  (comp.  Ezek.  xvi.  5)  could  be  compared  to  a  helpless 
infant  cast  away  in  its  blood,  the  fulfilment  of  the  promises  given  to  the  fathers 
was  to  take  place  ;  and,  in  accordance  with  this,  El-Shaddai  was  to  show  Him- 
self as  Jehovah.  The  divine  instrument  for  this  was  Moses.  After  he  had  been 
providentially  saved  from  death  as  a  child  (Ex.  ii.  Iff.),  and  had  been  brought 
up  at  the  royal  court  {nda))  (jocpia  AlyvKTiuv,  Acts  vii.  22),  he  appears  in  manhood 
(in  the  fortieth  year  of  his  life,  according  to  tradition  ;  see  Acts  vii.  23)  in  the 
midst  of  his  oppressed  people,  kills  an  Egyptian  who  is  maltreating  an  Israelite, 
and  flees,  when  this  deed  becomes  known,  into  the  Arabian  wilderness  (1).  What 
he  failed  to  do  when  trying  in  his  own  might,  he  was  to  accomplish  forty  years 
after  as  an  instrument  in  God's  hand  (2).  When  Moses  had  accredited  himself 
to  the  people  as  a  divine  messenger,  he  first  demanded  of  Pharaoh  liberty  for 
Israel  to  go  into  the  wilderness,  in  order  there  to  celebrate  a  sacrificial  festival  to 
Jehovah.  As  Pharaoh  repels  the  request  with  scorn,  and  increases  to  the  utter- 
most tlie  oppression  of  the  people,  there  follows  the  divine  declaration  that  Israel 
shall  now  be  brought  out  of  Egypt  by  great  judgments,  and  that  thus  the  exist- 
ence of  Jehovah  as  the  Lord  of  the  world  shall  be  manifested  to  Israel  as  well  as 
to  the  Egyptians  (comp.  Ex.  vi.  6  f.,  viii.  18,  ix.  16).  The  ten  plagues  which  are 
sent  on  the  Egyptians  (Ex.  vii.-xii.,  comp.  with  Ps.  Ixxviii.  43  ff.,  cvi.  20  ff.)  are 
mostly  connected  with  natural  events  and  conditions  which  frequently  recur  in 
Egypt.  The  order  of  their  succession  stands  in  close  connection  with  the  na^tural 
course  of  the  Egyptian  year  from  the  time  of  the  first  swelling  of  the  Nile,  which 
generally  happens  in  June,  to  the  spring  of  the  following  year  (3).  But  partly 
the  severity  of  the  plagues,  and  partly  their  connection  with  the  word  of  Moses 
(comp.  especially  viii.  5  f.),  make  them  signs  of  Jehovah's  power.  In  them  the 
triumph  of  the  true  (xod  over  the  gods  of  the  land  (xii.  12  ;  Num.  xxxiii.  4)  is 
shown,  and  thus  they  serve  as  a  pledge  of  the  triumph  of  the  divine  kingdom 
over  heathenism  (comp.  Ex.  xv.  11,  xviii.  11).  Even  in  the  heathen  accounts  of 
the  departure  of  Israel  from  Egypt  by  Manetho  (Josephus,  c.  Ap.  i.  26,  and 
Diodorus,  BiUioth.  lib.  xl.  fragm.),  it  comes  out  undeniably  that  there  was  a 
great  religious  struggle  (4).  The  plagues  rise  from  step  to  step  until,  after  the 
tenth  plague,  viz.  the  killing  of  the  first-born  of  the  Egyptians,  which  takes  place 
in  the  same  night  with  the  institution  of  the  passover  in  Israel,  the  Egyptians, 
full  of  fear,  drive  the  people  from  the  land  (5). — Because  the  people  are  not  yet 
matured  for  war  with  the  nations  of  Canaan,  Moses  does  not  lead  them  to  Canaan 
by  the  nearest  road,  but  chooses  the  roundabout  way  through  the  wilderness  of 
the  peninsula  of  Sinai.  But  scarcely  have  the  people  turned  in  this  direction, 
and  encamped  close  by  the  Red  Sea,  probably  in  the  plain  of  the  modern  Suez, 
when  Pharaoh  draws  near.     Shut  in   by  the  enemy's  forces,  and  by  mountains 


§    27.]  THE    COUKSE    OF   THE    DELIVERANCE    FROM    EGYPT.  71 

and  the  waves  of  the  sea,  the  people  receivre  the  direction  to  go  forward  in 
faith.  A  storm  drives  back  the  water,  Israel  passes  safely  through  the  sea  in 
the  tumult  of  the  elements,  led  by  God  like  a  fiock  of  sheep  (Ps.  Ixxvii. 
17-21  ;  Isa.  Ixiii.  11  If.)  ;  but  the  Egyptian  army  which  follows  is  buried  by  the 
waves.  "  And  the  people  feared  Jehovah,  and  believed  in  Jehovah  and  His  ser- 
vant Moses  "  (Ex.  xiv.  31).  In  this  form,  the  act  of  divine  deliverance  was 
handed  down  in  Israel  (comp.  Ps.  Ixxviii.  12  ff.,  cvi.  8  if.,  cxiv.),  a  type  of  future 
redemption,  ever  again  revived  in  their  memory  by  the  yearly  anniversary  (Isa. 
xi.  15  f.). — The  duration  of  IsraeVs  stay  in  Egyjjt  is  fixed  as  430  years,  according 
to  Ex.  xii.  40,  comp.  Gen.  xv.  13,  against  which  the  LXX.  in  the  first  passage 
reckon  as  part  of  the  number  430  the  stay  of  the  patriarchs  in  Canaan,  and  thus 
reduce  the  time  of  the  stay  in  Egypt  by  one  half  (6). 

(1)  Comp.  the  explanation  of  this  narrative.  Acts  vii.  24  f.  :  " 'Evo//(Cf  ^i 
cwLEvaL  TovQ  cK^e'Xipohc  avTov,  on  6  Qebg  6ia  x^i-poQ  avrov  dlduoiv  avrolg  cuTTjpiav'  ol  6e  ov 
cvvf/Kav.'''' 

(2)  In  the  view  of  tliis  narrative  given  by  Evvald  {History  of  Israel,  ii.  pp.  53, 
70  ff.),  Israel  is  represented  in  an  entirely  different  light  from  that  which  we  find 
in  the  book  of  Exodus.  His  view  is  substantially  this  :  Before  the  leading  out  of 
the  people,  a  powerful  impulse  seized  them,  "  the  most  extraordinary  exertions 
and  most  noble  a<"tivities  of  the  spirit  wrestlmg  for  freedom."  Then  Moses  be- 
cam:^  prominent  among  them,  one  of  the  greatest  heroes  that  ever  lived,— a  man, 
indeed,  of  matchless  greatness,  who  must  have  worked  with  wonderful  energy 
and  success.  A  religious  struggle  ensues  between  Israel  and  the  Egyptians,  the 
result  of  which  is  the  departure  of  the  Israelites  from  Egypt.  "The  confident 
spirit  once  excited  in  the  people  must  have  remained  unweakened  in  the  now 
coming  crisis  at  the  Red  Sea,"  as  happens  when  "  at  the  right  time  a  favorable 
wind  brings  to  the  lignt  the  deposited  germs."  Thus  the  march  through  the 
Red  Sea  gained  a  fundamental  significance  for  the  theocracy.  — This  is  all  very 
well  ;  but  in  the  Old  Testament  the  honor  is  not  given  to  the  peojjle,  but  the 
whole  history  tends  to  show  what  divine  discipline  can  make  out  of  a  sunken  peo- 
ple. The  Old  Testament  gives  no  intimation  of  a  mighty  spiritual  movement 
among  the  people  in  Egypt  (comp.  also  the  conception  in  Acts  vii.  25  flf.).  Eze- 
kiel  compares  the  nation  to  a  helpless  infant  cast  away  without  mercy,  lying  in  its 
blood.  In  regard  to  Moses,  the  story  certainly  indicates  a  preparation  for  his 
future  calling  ;  but  if  according  to  tradition  (xVcts  vii.  22)  he  was  educated  in  all 
the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians,  even  Ewald  himself  remarks  that  "  certainly  the 
influence  of  Egyjitian  education  was  in  the  end  more  negative  than  positive" 
{History  of  Israel,  ii.  p.  56).  The  point  brought  forward  in  the  text  is  here  of 
especial  significance  :  how  the  first  appearance  of  Moses  when  he  slew  the  Egyp- 
tian, which  is  spoken  of  by  Stephen  (Acts  vii.  25)  as  a  signal  for  the  people, — 
how  this  arbitrary  deed  led  first  to  a  long  exile  for  Moses,  and  how  only  at  a 
later  period,  when  he  no  longer  counted  himself  capable,  he  was  to  reach  success 
(comp.  also  Auberlen,   The  Divine  Revelation,  i.  p.  101  flf.). 

(3)  Eichhoru  was  the  first  to  show,  in  his  De  ^gypti  amio  Mirahili,  how  the 
whole  course  of  the  plagues  is  connected  with  the  course  of  the  Egyptian  year. 
The  full  treatment  of  this  topic  by  Hengstenberg,  The  Boohs  of  Moses  and  Egypt,  is 
particularly  interesting.      [Comp.  also  the  art.  "  Plagen  agyptische"  in  Riehm.] 

(4)  According  to  a  remark  in  §  3,  the  Old  Testament  theology  has,  in  distinc- 
tion from  the  history  of  Israel,  to  reproduce  the  facts  as  they  continued  to  live  in 
the  spirit  of  the  organs  of  revelation,  and  formed  the  basis  of  religion,  wiiile  re- 
searches like  those  on  the  Hyksos  are  relegated  to  the  history  of  the  Israelites. 
For  the  latter  question,  see  Ewald's  History  of  Israel,  ii.  p.  76  fi.,  one  of  the  best 
parts  of  his  book. 

(5)  Of  the  various  passages  in  the  chapters  that  treat  of  the  exodus,  Ex.  xii. 


72  THE    HISTORY   OP    REVELATION".  [§   28, 

35  f.,  compared  with  xi.  2  f.,  may  bo  discussed  more  at  large  on  account  of  its 
celebrity.  In  iii.  22,  it  is  said,  "  Each  woman  shall  ask  from  her  neighbor  ves- 
sels of  silver  and  gold,  and  clothes  ;''  and  ver.  21,  "  I  will  give  this  people  favor 
in  the  eyes  of  the  Egyptians,  that  when  they  go  they  may  not  go  empty."  Then 
it  is  said,  xii.  35  f.,  "  The  children  of  Israel  did  according  to  the  word  of  Moses, 
and  asked  of  the  Egyptians  silver  and  golden  vessels,  and  clothes  ;  and  Jehovah 
gave  the  people  favor  in  the  eyes  of  the  Egyptians."  On  Luther's  [and  A.  V. 's| 
interpretation  of  the  words  which  follow  :  Dnvp-n;?i!  iVxri  DlSxK^.'l,  "  so  that  they 
lent  to  them,  and  they  spoiled  the  Egyptians,"  the  diflBculty  arises,  how  an  actual 
theft  can  be  here  commanded.  It  is  not  necessary  to  show  that  theft  is  in  de- 
cided opposition  to  the  moral  spirit  of  Mosaism.  The  solution  which  Ewald 
adopts  in  his  History  of  Israel,  ii.  p.  65,  is,  that  the  spoiling  is,  in  the  sense  of 
the  story,  no  theft,  because  the  subsequent  breach  of  faith  on  Pharaoh's  part 
made  it  impossible  to  give  back  the  borrowed  property,  and  that  this  turn  of 
affairs  contained  at  tiie  same  time  a  sort  of  divine  retribution  in  favor  of  Israel, 
inasmuch  as  it  appears,  when  looked  at  from  the  ultimate  issue,  simply  as  the 
equalizing  act  of  a  higher  providence  standing  over  human  inequalities,  that  they 
who  were  long  oppressed  by  the  Egyptians  should  in  this  manner  be  compensated. 
This  solution  may  be  right  so  far,  but  it  is  not  at  all  necessary.  Winer,  in  his 
Lexicon,  has  with  good  reason  left  out  the  meaning  "lend"  which  is  given  to 
the  word  l^'i^'dT),  The  word  appears  in  the  Hiphil  only  once  more  in  the  Old 
Testament,  1  Sam.  i.  28,  and  there  it  is  quite  incorrect  to  translate  that  Hannah 
lends  her  son  Samuel  to  the  Lord.  She  wishes  to  give  him  to  God  in  giving  him 
to  the  sanctuary.  The  word  rather  signifies  dedit  alicui  quod  petierat,  according 
to  Winer.  In  the  /XJ,  xii.  36,  compared  with  iii.  22,  no  robbery  is  implied,  but  a 
simple  taking  away  ;  in  what  sense,  the  connection  must  decide.  Accordingly 
the  sense  of  the  passage  is,  that  the  Egyptians  are  glad  to  get  rid  of  the  Israelites 
at  this  price  ;  so  that  Ewald's  view,  that  we  have  here  an  act  of  remuneration, 
that  the  children  of  Israel  might  thus  receive  a  compensation,  is  still  applicable. 
But  when  Ewald  and  others  see  in  the  matter  also  the  quite  different  meaning 
that  Israel  took  from  the  Egyptians  the  true  religion,  the  right  utensils  of  sacri- 
fice, and  along  with  them  the  true  holy  things  and  sacrifices,  nothing  of  this  lies 
in  the  story,  and  this  construction  is  very,  far-fetched. 

(6)  Certainly  in  the  genealogy,  Ex.  vi.  16-20,  Moses  and  Aaron  form  the  fourth 
generation  Irom  Levi  ;  but  it  follows  from  other  genealogies  that  links  are  left 
out  in  this  genealogy.  That  in  Num.  xxvi.  29  ff.  has  six  generations  ;  that  in 
1  Chron.  ii.  3  ff.,  seven  ;  that  in  1  Chron.  vii.  22  ff.,  as  many  as  ten  for  the  same 
period.  The  enormous  increase  of  the  population  of  Israel  can  only  be  explained 
by  accepting  a  longer  period. 


ir.    THE   INSTITUTION    OF   THE   COVENANT   OF   THE   LAW,  AND   THE   MAllCH   THROUGH 

THE   WILDERNESS. 

§38. 

Educational  Aim  of  the  March  through  the  Wilderness.      The    Covenant  of  the  Law 

established. 

In  God's  great  deed  at  the  Red  Sea,a  pledge  was  given  to  the  people  for  the 
happy  completion  of  the  newly  commenced  march,  for  victory  over  all  their  ene- 
mies, and  for  their  introduction  to  the  promised  land,  as  foretold  in  Moses'  song 
of  praise,  Ex.  xv.  13  ff.  But  first  the  people,  scarcely  escaped  from  the  rod  of 
correction,  from  the  flesh-pots  and  the  idols  of  Egypt,  must  be  educated,  sifted, 
and   purified   for  their   calling  ;    and  this    educational  aim   is    secured  by  the 


§  28.]  EDUCATIOJSTAL  AIM  OF  THE  MARCH  THROUGH  THE  WILDERNESS.   73 

march  in  the  icilderness,  where  the  people  are  thrown  entirely  on  their  God, 
where  they  become  aware  of  tlieir  need  of  help  through  want  and  privation,  and 
are  to  be  exercised  in  obedience  and  trust  ;  but  to  prove  at  the  same  time,  in  the 
experience  of  the  divine  leading  and  help,  what  they  have  in  their  God  (Deut. 
viii.  2-5,  14-18  ;  comp.  also  the  typical  application,  Hos.  ii.  (10)  (1).  In  the 
third  month,  Ex.  xix.  1  (accordmg  to  the  probable  indication  of  the  date  in 
this  passage,  which  indeed  is  not  clear),  on  the  first  of  the  month,  the  i)eople 
reached  Sinai,  where  Jehovah,  as  the  Holy  One,  in  which  attribute  lie  has  already 
manifested  Himself  in  the  redemption  of  the  people  (xv.  11,  comp.  Ps.  Ixxvii. 
14-16),  founds  the  theocracy  and  enters  on  His  kingship  (comp.  Ex.  xv.  18).  After 
the  people  have  been  told  of  their  election  above  all  nations  as  the  divine  property, 
and  have  been  prepared  by  consecration  for  the  solemn  act,  follows  the  promul- 
gation of  the  fundamental  law  by  which  Jehovah  binds  Israel's  race  to  a  holy 
constitution,  and  thus  "  He  became  King  in  Jeshurun"  (Deut.  xxxiii.  5).  By 
the  covenant  offering,  Ex.  xxiv.,  the  entrance  of  the  people  into  communion  with 
the  holy  God  is  sealed.  Both  the  electing  love  of  God,  who  here  betroths  Himself 
to  His  people  (Ezek.  xvi.  8,  "  then  becamest  thou  mine"),  and  the  menacing 
severity  of  the  Holy  One  of  Israel  and  His  law  (comp.  Heb.  xii.  18  ff.),  appear  in 
the  whole  form  by  which  the  covenant  of  law  was  established.  With  regard  to 
grace  and  judgment,  Israel  is  from  this  time  forward  the  privileged  people  of 
God  (2). 

(1)  On  the  significance  of  the  march  through  the  wilderness,  compare  Auberlen's 
book.  The  Divine  Revelation,  i.  p.  136  :  "  That  they  might  be  cast  on  Him  alone, 
and  not  become  immediately  re-entangled  in  the  world's  affairs,  Israel  is  not  led 
directly  from  Egypt  to  Canaan,  but  by  long  journeys  through  the  wilderness, 
where  the  life  of  nature  and  history  stands  still,  and  the  people  are  alone  with 
their  God.  Since  the  wilderness  is  without  nourishment,  and  without  so  much 
as  a  path,  the  simplest  sign  of  human  culture.  He  undertakes  to  feed  them  with 
manna  ;  He  undertakes  their  guidance  in  the  pillar  of  cloud  and  fire,  that  herein 
too  the  people  may  be  directly  pointed  to  Him,  and  accustomed  to  the  thought 
of  Him. "--It  is  this  meaning  of  the  wilderness-wandering  of  Israel  as  a  process 
of  education  which  makes  it  so  important,  not  simply  historically,  but  also  relig- 
iously ;  and  in  this  we  do  not  read  something  in  the  Old  Testament  history  which 
only  occurs  to  ourselves  as  we  meditate  on  it  ;  but  this  is  the  point  of  view  under 
which  the  Old  Testament  itself — the  Pentateuch,  and  especially  Deuteronomy, 
from  which  a  few  chief  passages  have  been  brought  forward  in  the  text,  as  well 
as  prophecy — ^presents  the  history  of  the  Israelites. — In  Hos.  ii.  16,  the  future 
restoration  of  Israel  is  represented  as  a  new  guidance  through  the  wilderness.  In 
tlie  preceding  passage  it  is  foretold  that  God  will  remove  Israel  into  a  position  of 
separation,  where  it  can  no  more  have  intercourse  with  the  idols  to  which  it  has 
given  itself.  This  is  the  first  stage.  And  now,  ver.  14  :  "  Behold,  I  will  entice 
her,  and  lead  her  into  the  wilderness,  and  will  speak  to  her  heart  ;"  the  people 
shall  be  placed  in  a  position  where  they  are  thrown  entirely  on  God,  as  Israel  was 
oace  in  the  Arabian  wilderness,  to  learn  by  experience  what  it  has  in  its  God. 

(2)  On  the  establishment  of  the  covenant  at  Sinai,  compare  the  words  of  Karl 
Ritter,  the  geographer,  in  his  beautiful  essay,  "  The  Peninsula  of  Sinai,  and  the 
Path  of  the  Children  of  Israel  to  Sinai,"  in  Piper's  Evangelical  Calendar,  1852,  p. 
35  :  "A  strange  astonishment  seizes  us  when  contemplating  this  great  mysterious 
miracle  of  miracles,  that  the  first  germ  of  a  purer  and  higher  religious  develop- 
ment of  the  human  race,  sunk  in  this  horrible  mountainous  wilderness,  was  to  be 
fructitied  by  sueh  patriarchal  simplicity,  and  further  unfolded  and  handed  down 
from  generMtiou   to   generation,  by  a  people  so  sunk  in  slavery,  so  lustful,  and  so 


74  THE    HISTORY    OF    REVELATION.  [§    29. 

often  a  covenant-breaking  people,  as  the  peo|)le  of  Israel  were,  and  that  by  them 
it  was  to  be  guarded  as  tlie  most  holy  jewel  for  the  whole  future  of  the  nations. 
Yet  the  divine  similes  of  the  sower,  of  the  mustard  seed,  and  of  the  leaven,  find 
here  their  earliest  application." 

§29. 

The  Fust  Breach  of  the  Covenant.      Order  of  the    Cam'p.     Departure  from  Sinai. 

Sentence  on  the  People. 

In  consequence  of  the  establishment  of  the  covenant,  Jehovah  designs  to  make 
His  dwelling  among  His  people.  Hence  the  laws  touching  the  arrangement  of 
the  tabernacle  are  next  given  in  Ex.  xxv.  ff.  (1).  But  before  this  is  carried  out 
the  people  have  already  broken  the  covenant,  by  falling  into  idolatry  in  the  ab- 
sence of  Moses.  Moses  executes  judgment  on  the  idolaters  ;  and  on  this  occasion 
the  tribe  of  Levi — whose  zeal  now  takes  fire,  not,  like  their  father's  (Gen.  xxxiv.), 
for  the  wounded  family  honor,  but  for  God's  honor — obtains  its  consecration  (Ex. 
xxxii.  2G-29  ;  comp.  also  Num.  xxv.  11,  Deut.  xxxiii.  [)  f.)  (2).  But  Moses  goes 
before  Jehovah,  offering  himself  for  the  people  as  the  victim  of  the  curse,  and 
implores  by  repeated  intercession  the  divine  meicy  till  he  has  obtained  pardon. 
Thus  the  Jirst  breach  of  the  covenant  leads  to  a  further  disclosure  of  the  Divine  Being  ; 
and  to  God's  former  names  are  added  the  new  ones  :  merciful,  gracious,  long- 
suffering  God  (Ex. xxxiv.  6).  But  in  Moses'  offer  to  resign  his  personal  salvation, 
if  only  his  people  may  be  delivered,  the  idea  of  a  reconciling  mediation  coming 
in  for  a  sinful  people  appears  for  the  first  time  (comp.  Rom.  ix.  3)  (3). — During  the 
stay  at  Sinai,  which  was  for  about  a  year,  the  holy  tabernacle  is  set  up  and  dedi- 
cated, the  ordinances  of  worship  are  regulated,  and  a  number  of  other  laws  are 
given,  in  which  are  fixed  with  particular  exactness  all  points  by  which  in  the 
regulation  of  the  people's  life  their  difference  from  the  Egyptians  and  from  the 
Canaanitish  tribes  is  to  be  marked  (comp.,  in  particular,  passages  like  Lev.xviii. 
2  f.,  24,  XX.  23  f.).  Hereupon  the  number  of  the  people  is  taken,  the  tribe  of 
Levi  is  introduced  into  the  position  ordained  for  it.  and,  lastly,  the  order  of 
encampment  is  fixed,  by  which  (Num.  ii.  and  iii.,  comp.  x.  13  ff.)  the  relation  of 
Jehovah  to  the  people  as  His  army  (as  they  are  called,  Ex.  vii.  4),  and  at  the 
same  time  their  relations  to  each  other,  are  distinctly  expressed.  In  the  middle 
is  the  holy  tabernacle  ;  next  to  it,  on  the  east,  the  priests  encamp  ;  and  on  the 
three  other  sides  the  three  families  of  the  Levites  ;  then  come  the  twelve  tribes, 
arranged  on  the  political  division  which  separates  Joseph  into  two  tribes,  in 
four  triads,  facing  the  four  quarters  of  the  heavens,  each  of  which  had  a  leading 
tribe  with  a  banner  at  its  head.  Judah,  Reuben,  Ephraim,  and  Dan  are  the  lead- 
ing tribes  ;  and  Judah,  the  first  of  them,  encamping  on  the  east,  leads  the  whole 
procession. — In  the  second  year,  on  the  twentieth  of  the  month,  the  nmovalfrom 
Sinai  tnkes  place.  The  people  are  to  pass  in  a  direct  way  through  the  wilderness 
of  Paraii  to  the  promised  land.  They  succeed— under  repeated  outbreaks  of  their 
stitfueckedness,  and  chastisements  suffered  on  this  account- in  reaching  Kadesh- 
Barnea,  the  southern  boundary  of  Canaan.  In  the  catalogue  of  the  resting-places 
(Num.  xxxiii.),  the  station  Rithma  (ver.  IS)  is  probably  to  be  looked  for  beside 
Kadesh.     From  this  point  Moses  causes  the  land  to  be  searched  by  twelve  spies. 


§    29.]      FIRST  BREACH  OF  COVEISTASTT.       SENTENCE  ON  THE  PEOPLE.        75 

The  accounts  which  these  bring  back  raise  a  general  insurrection.  The  measure 
of  the  divine  patience  is  now  exhausted.  A  -wandeiing  of  forty  years  long  in 
the  wilderness  is  decreed  against  the  people,  during  which  time  all  those  who 
have  passed  their  twentieth  year — that  is,  the  whole  body  of  men  who  were  capa 
ble  of  war — are  to  be  swept  away,  except  Oshea,  or  Joshua  as  Moses  calls  him 
(Num.  xiii.  16),  and  Caleb,  who  had  no  share  in  that  offence  (Num.  xiv.,  comp. 
xxxii.  13,  Josh.  v.  6).  Hence  the  history  of  the  march  through  the  wilderness  is 
treated  as  a  type  of  warning  for  all  times  in  Ps.  Ixxviii.,  xcv.  8  ff.  ;  in  the  New 
Testament,  in  1  Cor.  x.  1-12,  Heb.  iii.  7  ff. 

(1)  The  structure  of  the  legislative  portions  of  the  Pentateucl\  belongs  to  the 
department  of  Old  Testament  Introduction.  I  only  remark  here  that  the  succes- 
sion of  the  laws  has  not  the  systematic  arrangement  of  a  formal  code,  but  each  law  is 
put  in  the  place  in  which  its  publication  appears  to  be  necessary.  If  this  is  taken 
into  consideration,  many  inconsistencies  supposed  to  have  been  found  in  these 
sections  vanish.  [According  to  some  recent  critics  there  may  have  been  a  tent 
under  which  the  ark  usually  stood,  but  there  was  no  tabernacle  constituting  tlie 
only  legitimate  sanctuary  and  centre  of  worship  as  described  in  the  book  of  Ex- 
odus. According  to  Wellhausen,  the  tabernacle  of  Exodus  is  a  pure  fiction  of  the 
post-exilic  period,  derived  from  the  temple  of  Solomon  under  the  desiie  of  mak- 
ing the  prescribed  central  sanctuary  appear  as  an  original  Mosaic  institution. 
This  theory  is  closely  connected  with  the  position  that  the  Mosaic  age  knew  noth- 
ing of  a  centralizing  of  worship,  and  that  this  latter  idea  did  not  exist  as  a  facr 
until  after  the  exile.  A  critical  examination  of  this  position  is  not  possible  within 
our  limits.  Compare  Bredenkamp,  especially  chap.  iii.  But  when  Sclmltz  ip. 
155)  observes,  "  A  splendor  like  that  described  in  the  chapters  in  question,  if  we 
bear  in  mind  the  immense  effort  required  to  build  the  temple  of  Solomon,  cannot 
be  predicated,  notvvithstandingall  apologetic  shifts,  of  a  troop  of  wandering  shep- 
herds, even  if  they  were  laden  with  Egytian  booty" — the  answer  is,  that  tlie 
idea  just  now  common,  that  the  Israelites  were  a  troop  of  wandering  shepherds, 
is  more  than  the  facts  of  history  will  sustain.  For  how  could  the  Israelites,  held 
in  bondage  by  Pharaoh,  move  about  in  the  land  as  shepherds  ?  And  if  they  could 
make  a  golden  calf,  why  not  the  tabernacle  ?  Comp.  Biihr,  Symbulik  des  Mosai- 
schen  Kidtus,  p.  282  ff.,  and  the  article  of  P.  Gerhard,  "  Is  the  tabernacle  a  fic- 
tion of  the  post-exilic  age,  or  a  Mosaic  institution  ?"  in  the  Bciceis  des  Olauiens, 
1879,  p.  526  ff.] 

(2)  It  has  already  been  shown  in  §  25,  that  in  Jacob's  prophetical  utterances 
Levi  received  a  curse  rather  than  a  blessing,  on  account  of  his  passionate  zeal 
manifested  in  the  treacherous  deed  of  blood  (Gen.  xxxiv.).  Now  tlie  turning  of 
the  curse  into  a  blessing  is  found  in  Ex.  xxxii.  26-29,  when  Moses  returns  from  the 
mountain,  and  sees  the  sin  of  the  people  wath  the  golden  calf.  At  his  cry, 
"  Hither  to  me,  all  ye  who  belong  to  the  Lord  !''  the  tribe  of  Levi  gathers  around 
him  at  once,  sword  in  hand,  and  executes,  without  mercy,  punishment  on  the 
idolaters.  Deut.  xxxiii.  9  f.  refers  to  this  history  :  "  He  who  saith  of  his  father 
and  his  mother,  I  see  him  not,  and  knoweth  not  his  brothers,  nor  acknowledgeth 
his  sons,  .  .  .  they  shall  teach  thee  thy  laws,  O  Jacob,"  etc.  Num.  xxv.  6-13, 
the  story  of  the  zeal  of  Phinehas,  is  another  explanatory  parallel  in  the  Penta- 
teuch, in  which  this  characteristic  trait,  which  qualifies  Levi  for  the  priesthood, 
is  pointed  out. 

(3)  One  of  the  most  beautiful  sections  of  the  Pentateuch,  in  which  Moses  ap- 
pears in  all  his  greatness,  is  the  story  of  his  offering  himself  as  avdOs/ia,  if  God 
will  only  forgive  the  people,  —a  thought  which  has  been  uttered  by  only  one  other 
than  Moses,  namely  Paul,  Rom.  ix.  3  :  rjVxnuTjv  yap  avrug  eyu)  avdOeun  elvai  aTvb  rov 
Xpiarov  vKt-p  tuv  d<h2.(p(jv  fiov,  etc.  Comp.,  in  particular,  Bengel's  Gnomon  on  this 
passage  :  Verba  humana  non  sunt  plane  apta,  quibus  includantur  motus  anima- 
rum  sanotarum  :    neque  semper  iiib-m  sunt  motus  illi,  necjue  in  earum  poiestate 


76  THE    HISTORY    OF    llEVELATION.  [§    30. 

est,  tale  semper  votuin  ex  sese  elicere.  Non  capit  hoc  anima  non  valde  provecta. 
De  mensura  amoris  in  Mose  et  Paulo  non  facile  est  existimare.  Eum  enim 
modulus  ratiocinationum  nostrarum  non  capit  :  .sicut  heroum  bellicorum  animos 
non  capit  parvulus.  Apud  ipsos  illos  duumviros  intervalla  ilia,  quoe  bono  sensu 
ecstatica  dici  possunt,  subitum  quiddam  et  extraordinarium  fuere.  Ne  in  ipso- 
rum  quidem  potestate  erat,  tales  actus  ex  sese  quovis  tempore  elicere,  etc.  In 
Genesis  we  have  a  mediatorial  intervention,  when  Abraham  wishes  to  intervene 
for  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  ;  but  more  remarkable  is  the  intervention  of  Moses, 
who  proposes  to  be  blotted  out  of  the  book  of  life.  K.  Lechler  rightly  points  out, 
in  his  treatise,  "  Bemerkungen  zum  Begriffe  der  Religion,"  in  Ullmann's  Studien 
utul  Kritihen,  1851,  p.  783,  that  such  lofty  utterances  of  the  religious  life  could 
not  be  framed  from  Schleiermacher's  idea  of  religion. 

§30. 

The  Wandering  during  Thirty-seven   Years  in  the   Wilderness,  and  the  Events  up  to 
the  Occupation  of  the  Land  on  the  East  Side  of  Jordan. 

The  history  of  the  Pentateuch  passes  over  the  following  seven-and-thirty  years 
almost  wholly  in  silence.  According  to  Deut.  i.  46,  a  longer  stay  of  the  people 
in  Kadesh  must  be  presupposed.  From  this  point  the  return  march  of  the 
people  into  the  wilderness  took  place  by  the  stages  registered  in  Num.  xxxiii. 
19  ff.,  in  which  wandering  for  thirty-seven  years  the  march  around  Mount  Seir, 
mentioned  in  Deut.  ii.  1,  is  included.  In  the  first  month  of  the  fortieth  year,  the 
people  are  again  in  Kadesh-Barnea.  This  second  encampment  is  meant  in  Num. 
XX.  1.  The  new-grown  race  show  the  same  stubbornness  as  the  earlier  one  ; 
they  contend  with  Moses  and  Aaron  ;  and  as  this  time  even  the  faith  of  these 
two  wavers,  to  them  also  entrance  into  the  land  of  rest  is  denied  (Num.  xx.  10, 
12,  comp.  Ps.  cvi.  32  f.).  In  Deut.  i.  37  (comp.  iii.  26),  Moses  and  Aaron  do  not 
seek  to  be  acquitted  from  their  own  guilt  (see  xxxii.  51);  but  the  conscience  of 
the  people  has  to  be  touched,  because  their  sin  gave  occasion  to  the  guilt  of  the 
two  (1).  As  the  Edomites  denied  their  brother-people  the  passage  through  their 
lands,  Israel  had  to  turn  back  a  second  time  from  the  border  of  Canaan,  and  go 
around  the  mountains  of  Edom,  in  order  to  enter  from  the  eastern  side  (Num. 
XX.  14  ff.).  A  new  outbreak  of  the  people's  stubbornness  draws  upon  them 
another  chastisement,  but  at  the  same  time  supplies  the  occasion  for  a  revelation 
of  the  saving  power  of  faith  (xxi.  4  ff.).  The  brazen  saraph  (a  sort  of  serpent) 
which  was  suspended,  is  a  symbol  of  the  doing  away  of  evil  through  the  power 
and  grace  of  God.  To  this  the  typical  use  in  John  lii.  14  attaches  itself  (2). 
Then  follow,  in  the  land  on  the  east  of  Jordan,  successful  combats,  as  a  testi- 
mony to  Jehovah's  faithfulness  and  a  pledge  of  future  victory.  The  Amorites 
and  Og  king  of  Bashan  are  conquered,  and  Israel  encamps  in  the  plains 
of  Moab,  opposite  to  Jericho,  and  separated  from  the  Holy  Land  only  by  the 
Jordan.  King  Balak  of  Moab  wishes  to  conjure  away  the  danger  by  means  of 
Balaam,  the  seer  from  Mesopotamia,  and  to  arrest  the  path  of  the  victorious 
people  by  means  of  his  curse  ;  but  the  seer,  overpowered  by  the  Spirit  of 
Jehovah,  is  compelled  to  bless  Israel,  and  make  known  to  the  people  its  future 
splendor,  and  the  brilliant  victories  and  wide  dominion  which  it  is  to  have 
(xxiv.  17-19),  while  he  declares  the  fall  of  the  heathen  world,  and  also  the  sub- 


§   30.]  WANDEIUNG    IX    THE    WILDERNESS.  7? 

jugation  of  the  world-power  of  Asia  after  its  conquest  of  the  people  dwelling 
around  them,  by  a  power  coming  from  the  west  (vers.  20-24)  (3). — More  success- 
ful were  the  Moabites  and  Midianites,  when,  at  Balaam's  advice  (xxxi.  16),  they 
enticed  the  people  to  the  service  of  Baal-Peor,  and  the  lewdness  connected  there- 
with. After  vengeance  has  been  taken  on  the  Midianites  for  this  (chap,  xxxi.), 
the  land  which  was  conquered  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan,  and  which  was  espe- 
cially adapted  for  the  continuation  of  a  pastoral  life,  is  distributed  to  the  tribes 
of  Reuben,  Gad,  and  half  of  Manasseh  (chap,  xxxii.).  This  stretch  of  land  does 
not  belong  to  the  promised  land  proper,  the  property  of  Jehovah  (Josh.  xxii.  19), 
which  is  limited  to  the  territory  on  the  west  of  the  Jordan,  according  to  the  boun- 
daries given  in  Num.  xxxiv.  1  ff.  But  a  territory  of  much  wider  extent  was  prom- 
ised to  the  people  (Gen.  xv.  18)  between  the  rivers  Nile  and  Euphrates,  or,  ac- 
cording to  the  more  precise  statement  (Ex.  xxiii.  31),  between  the  Red  Sea  and 
the  Mediterranean,  the  Arabian  wilderness,  and  the  Euphrates  (comp.  also 
Deut.  i.  7,  xi.  24,  Josh.  i.  4). — The  new  numbering  of  the  people,  which  was 
made  (Num.  xxvi.)  in  the  plains  of  Moab,  shows  the  new-grown  race  to 
be  numerically  almost  the  same  as  before  (601,730  men  fit  for  war,  against 
603,550)  ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  the  differences  of  number  among  the  indi- 
vidual tribes  are  considerable,  especially  in  the  tribe  of  Simeon  (comp.  xxvi. 
14  with  i.  23),  which  has  diminished  to  almost  a  third  part  of  its  former  size, 
and,  according  to  this,  seems  to  have  shared  especially  in  the  last  visitation  of 
punishment,  as  indeed,  according  to  xxv.  14,  the  guilty  prince  Zimri  was  a 
Simeonite. 

(1)  In  Num.  XX.  10,  Moses  says  to  the  people  :  "  Hear,  ye  rebels  ;  shall  we 
indeed  bring  water  to  you  out  of  the  rock  ?"  Upon  this,  Jehovah  says  to  Moses 
and  Aaron,  ver.  12  :  "  Because  ye  have  not  believed  on  me,  to  sanctify  me  before 
the  people  of  Israel,  ye  sliall  not  bring  this  congregation  into  the  land  which  I 
give  them." — Ueut.  i.  37  :  "  Also  against  me  was  Jehovah  wroth  for  your  sakes, 
and  said,  Also  thou  shalt  not  enter."  Ps.  cvi.  32  f.:  "  They  made  (God)  angry 
at  the  water  of  strife,  and  it  went  ill  with  Moses  because  of  them  ;  for  they  made 
Ills  spirit  bitter,  so  that  he  spoke  inconsiderate  words  with  his  lips"  (i^P-'i 
:Vri3tyD).  It  is  an  old  question  of  dispute,  "  qua  in  re  feccaverit  Moses.''^  Comp. 
Buddeus,  Historia  ecdesiastica  V.  T.  i.  p.  527  f.,  for  the  older  views.  The  recent 
critics  have  often  maintained  that  there  is  at  least  one  contradiction  between  the 
passages  in  the  book  of  Num1)ers  and  those  in  Deuteronomy,  but  the  solution  is 
easily  found  in  the  way  indicated  in  the  text.  That  in  the  unbelief  of  the 
whole  race  no  excuse  is  found  for  the  weak  faith  of  the  chosen  instruments  of 
God  ;  tliat  unbroken  obedience  was  demanded  from  the  organs  of  revelation,  and 
that  these  are  most  sharply  punished  as  a  warning,  — is  tlie  idea  of  the  narrative. 

(2)  Numerous  mistakes  have  been  made  by  taking  the  brazen  serpent.  Num. 
xxi.  8  f.,  as  a  symbol  of  the  healing  power,  which  the  serpent  certainly  often  is 
in  heathenism  ;  while  besides  this,  in  the  Phoenician  and  Egyptian  religions,  the 
wounded  serpent  appears  as  a  ftj/iniol  of  eternity  and  immortality.  But  this  does 
not  apply  here.  Though  Wisd.  xvi.  5  ff.  calls  the  brazen  T^Ji',  avujioXov 
acjT/jpia^,  this  is  not  as  if  tlie  serpent  itself,  as  in  heathenism,  were  Ihe  symbol  of 
the  healing  power  ;  but  (comp.  Schmid,  Biblicol  Theol.  of  the  AT.  T.  i.  p.  215  ; 
Ewald,  History  of  IsraA,  ii.  p.  176  f.),  as  indicated  in  the  text,  the  matter  stands 
thus  • — The  serpent  is  a  symbol  of  the  evil  which  has  now  come  upon  Israel  on 
account  of  its  sins,  and  the  serpent  set  up  as  a  standard  is  a  symbol  of  the  over- 
coming and  doing  away  of  evil  for  every  believer  by  means  of  Jehovah's  might 
and  grace.     "  Now  he  wljo  looks  on  this  sign  ordained  by  God  is  master  of  tim 


78  THE   HISTORY    OF    REVELATION.  [§   31. 

poison  that  has  penetrated  into  him"  (Tjaumgarten,  Theological  Covimcntary  on  the 
Pentateuch,  i.  2).  To  this  refers  tiie  typical  interpretation  in  Christ's  saying, 
John  lil.  14  f.:  Kadihc  Muvafjg  in/'wcre  tuv  vifuv  tp  ry  ip?'/f-tL>,  cvTLig  irjut'T/iai  dtt  tov  vlov 
Toil  avdpuKOv'  'Iva  ndq  6  Triarevuv  e/f  avrbv  /ui/  aiTo'AjjTai,  a'AX'  e^V  C^iv  ai6viov.  Therein 
lies  the  thought,  that  he  who  looks  in  faith  to  Him  whom  God,  as  Paul  expresses 
it,  2  Cor.  V.  21,  has  made  to  be  sin  for  us,  thus  becomes  free  from  the  poi?on  and 
guilt  of  sin  which  has  entered  into  him. — A  connection  with  the  Egyjjtian  ser- 
pent-worship is  the  less  to  be  thought  of  in  the  story,  since,  according  to 
Herodotus,  ii.  74,  the  sacred  serpents  of  the  Egyptians  were  harmless.  But 
Phcenician  and  Egyptian  serpent-worship  may  very  well  have  become  at  a  later 
time  the  occasion  of  the  idolatrous  misuse  of  the  image  of  the  serpent  which  is 
spoken  of  in  2  Kings  xviii.  4.  [Baudissin  i.  p.  288  f.,  accepts  the  meaning  given 
in  the  text  to  the  setting  up  of  the  serpent,  but  remarks  :  "  That  the  facts  con- 
nected with  the  serpent  were  as  related  in  the  book  of  Numbers  is  hardly  credi- 
ble :  for  it  remains  .  .  unintelligible  why  Moses  .  .  should  have  set  up  just  an 
image  of  a  serpent."  But  what  other  image  should  he  have  set  up,  if  the  object 
was  to  symbolize  the  destruction  of  noxious  serpents  ?  And  if,  as  Baudissin  fur- 
ther says,  "  it  occurred"  to  Israelites  at  a  later  period,  who  met  with  the  figure 
of  a  serpent,  "  to  suppose  a  plague  of  serpents  as  the  occasion  for  the  making  of 
the  image,  how  can  it  be  regarded  as  unintelligible  that  Moses  at  an  actual 
plague  of  serpents  should  have  actually  made  an  image  of  a  serpent  ?  Moreover, 
according  to  the  narrative,  Moses  made  the  serpent  in  accordance  with  the  di-\'ine 
direction,  and  on  this  rests  the  significance  of  the  story.  But  it  is  the  way  of 
our  modern  so-called  "  historians"  to  regard  such  divine  directions  as  mythical 
adornment  and  simply  to  ignore  the  biblical  statements.  ] 

(3)  Num.  xxiv.  17-19  is  the  well-known  prophetic  passage  concerning  the  star 
and  sceptre  arising  out  of  Israel.  It  portrays  the  splendid  and  victorious  power 
proceeding  from  Israel,  which  shall  overcome  Moab  and  Edom.  We  may  admit 
that  in  the  first  instance  only  a  sovereignty  arising  out  of  Jacob  is  here  i-poken  of 
(as  also  Hengstenberg  thinks).  But  this  cannot,  nevertheless,  be  conceived  of 
without  a  personal  representative  of  the  sovereignty.  The  passage  is  certainly  a 
Messianic  one.  I  understand  vers.  20-24  thus  :  The  ancient  people  of  Amalek 
shall  not  be  protected  by  their  age,  nor  the  people  of  the  Kenites  by  the  semrity 
of  their  dwelling.  The  seer,  after  he  has  foretold  the  fall  of  Israel's  chief  ene- 
mies, means  to  say  that  each  and  every  heathen  peojile,  even  those  who  appear 
to  be  most  firmly  established,  must  perish.  They  fall,  in  the  first  instance,  a  sacri- 
fice to  the  Asiatic  world-power,  which  has  its  seat  on  the  farther  side  of  the 
Euphrates  ;  but  this  power  itself  is  overcome  by  a  power  coming  from  the  side  of 
the  Hittites,  that  is,  from  the  west,  from  the  Mediterranean  Sea.  Since  this  also 
is  doomed  to  destruction,  the  whole  heathen  world  becomes  before  the  eyes  of 
the  seer  a  great  Golgotha,  over  which  God's  people  victoriously  rises.  It  is 
a  perfectly  miserable  explanation,  which  is  fond  of  calling  itself  historical 
(Hitzig),  according  to  which  the  arrival  of  the  fleet  from  the  side  of  the  Hittites 
is  made  to  refer  to  an  unimportant  inroad  of  sea-robbers  on  the  Asiatic  coast  in 
the  eighth  century.  The  passage  is  rather  parallel  to  that  in  the  close  of  Gen.  ix. 
Here  also  the  course  of  history  is  depicted  in  grand  outlines  :  first,  Asia,  repre- 
sented by  Asshur,  arises  as  a  world-empire  ;  Asia  falls  before  a  European  power, 
and  Israel  rises  out  of  both. 

§31. 

Deuteronomy.     Death  of  Moses.     His  Position  among  the  Organs  of  Revelation. 

The  people's  wandering  is  completed,  and  Moses  is  to  place  the  staff  of  leader- 
ship in  Joshua's  hands.  The  last  testament  of  the  departing  leader  to  his  people 
is  given  in  Deuteronomy  (1).  In  its  legislative  sections  it  forms  the  proper  law- 
book of  the  people,  the  enactments  of  which  presuppose  at  the  sarne  time  the  settle- 


§    31.]       MOSEs'  POSITION    AMONG    THE    ORGANS    OF    REVELATION.  70 

merit  of  the  people  ia  the  Holy  Land.  An  essential  peculiarity  of  the  book  is, 
tluit  it  also  presents  the  subjective  side  of  the  law,  which  had  been  brought  for- 
ward in  the  earlier  books  in  strict  objectivity  ;  wherefore  the  tone  of  speech  is 
here  more  that  of  paternal  warning,  which,  by  pointing  to  Jehovah's  electing  and 
long-suffering  patient  love,  endeavors  to  awaken  love  to  Him  in  return.  In  the 
section  which  carries  out  further  the  thoughts  in  Lev.  xxvi.  (Deut.  xxviii.-xxx. 
comp.  with  chap,  iv.),  and  in  the  farewell  song  of  Moses,  chap,  xxxii.,  lie  the 
fundamental  conceptions  of  prophecy  :  God's  grace  and  faithfulness  in  choosing 
and  leading  Israel  ;  the  people's  thanklessness  and  rebelliousness  ;  the  divine 
judgment  breaking  in,  and  God's  pity  turning  again  to  the  people  after  tlic  judg- 
niL-nt,  and  bringing  the  counsel  of  salvation  to  its  goal  in  their  restoration.  In 
Mjses'  blessing,  chap,  xxxiii.,  Judah,  Levi,  and  Joseph  are  especially  prominent  ; 
Simeon  is  not  mentioned,  which  maybe  explained  from  what  is  noted  at  the  close  of 
§  30.  In  Josh.  xix.  the  tribe  appears  again,  but  receives  a  very  small  inheritance. 
When  Moses  has  finished  blessing  his  people,  he  mounts  to  the  top  of  Pisgah  in 
order  to  cast  yet  one  look  on  the  longed-for  land,  and  appears  no  more  on  earth. 
His  end  is  related  in  a  mysterious  way,  but  is  indicated,  Deut.  xxxiv.  5,  7,  comp. 
xxxii.  50,  by  the  same  expressions  as  the  common  end  of  man's  life  (2).  Standing 
in  the  same  line  with  other  organs  of  revelation  by  the  name,  prophet,  Deut.  xviii. 
18,  Hos.  xii.  14,  and  the  name  of  honor,  "  Jehovah's  servant,"  Deut.  xxxiv.  5, 
he  was  nevertheless  placed  above  them,  in  that  to  him  was  granted  (Ex.  xxxiii.  11  ; 
Num.  xii.  6-8  ;  Deut.  xxxiv.  10)  a  higher  form  of  revelation  than  to  the  others, 
which  is  called  a  gazing  upon  God  (comp.  §  66,  8).  His  position,  as  divinely 
ordained  to  exercise  all  the  powers  of  the  theocracy,  is  a  unique  one,  which  did 
not  descend  to  Joshua,  who  had  only  to  execute  inherited  commands,  and 
administer  a  law  already  given  (3). 

(1)  Deuteronomy  is  one  of  the  most  disputed  books  in  the  Old  Testament,  but 
it  is  one  of  the  most  beautiful.  To  be  sure,  it  does  not  place  at  its  commence- 
ment a  testimony  that  the  book  as  it  lies  before  us  was  written  entirely  by 
Moses  ;  for  "1><5,  i.  5,  does  not  mean  "  he  engraved,  wrote,"  but  "  he  explained, 
expounded  this  law."  This  word,  therefore,  might  have  been  used,  even 
although  the  reporter  of  the  speeches  of  Moses  was  another  than  Moses  himself. 
But  "this  law"  itself  (nXIH  n")inn),  under  which  is  to  be  understood  in  partic- 
ular the  main  legislative  portion  of  tiie  book,  which  is  supplied  with  a  special 
tirh',  iv.  44-49,  and  with  a  subscript!  )n,  xxviii.  69  (Heb.),  is  characterized  most 
definitely  as  written  by  Moses  l)y  xxxi.  9  ("  and  Moses  wrote  this  law"),  and 
ver.  34("  when  Moses  h;iil  finished  writing  the  words  of  tliis  law  in  a  book  to  the 
end");  and  it  is  also,  without  doubt,  tlie  legislation  herein  contained  which  was 
to  be  written,  xxvii.  3-8,  on  the  stones  to  be  erected  on  E]>al.  It  is  pure  caprice 
to  refer  xxxi.  9,  24  to  the  Pentateuch,  and  yet  to  maintain  that  xxvii.  3-8,  in 
spite  of  the  most  definite  explanation  in  ver.  8,  "  all  the  words  of  this  law,"  only 
speaks  of  a  quintessence  of  the  law,  since  even  Hengstenberg  and  Keil  have  not 
ventured  to  assert  the  whole  Pentateuch  to  have  been  written  on  those  stones. — 
Now  those  legislative  parts  of  Deuteronomy  confessedly  show  a  remarkable  agree- 
ment with  the  book  of  the  covenant  in  Exodus,  which  claims  to  he  written  by 
Moses. — The  view  of  many  modern  critics,  that  the  finding  of  the  book  of  the 
law  at  the  repairing  of  the  temple  under  Josiah,  in  the  year  624  B.C.  (2  Kings 
xxii.),  was  in  truth  the  publication  of  Deuteronomy,  which  was  only  written  a 
short  time  before,  is  contrary  to  the  fact  that  even  the  oldest  prophets  presuppose 
Deuteronomy,  its  legislative   provisions,  and  also  its  speeches  ;  though,  indeed, 


80  THE    HISTOKY    OF    KEVELATIOJST.  [§    31. 

many  modern  critics  turn  the  mutter  round,  and  say,  for  example,  that  Isa.  i. 
does  not  rest  on  Deuteionomy,  but  Deuteronomy  has  copied  Isa.  i.,  etc. — A  closer 
examination  of  the  critical  question  of  Deuteronomy  must  be  left  to  Old  Testa-- 
ment  Introduction. 

(2)  In  speaking  of  the  close  of  Moses'  life,  the  phrases,  "  to  die,"  and  "  to  be 
gathered  to  his  people,"  are  used  xxxiv.  5,  7,  xxxii.  50.  The  last  expression  de- 
notes in  the  Old  Testament  common  death  and  removal  into  Sheol,  the  kingdom  of 
the  dead  (comp.  §  78).  There  are  two  men  in  the  Old  Testament  of  whom  these 
expressions  are  not  used,  viz.  Enoch  and  Elijah.  The  Jewish  legends  sought  to 
give  Moses,  that  eminent  organ  of  revelation,  a  2)lace  beside  these  two  per- 
sons. Josephus,  Ant.  iv.  8,  §  48,  represents  him  as  suddenly  snatched  away 
as  Elijah  was,  and  adds  that  Moses  has  indeed  Avrittcn  in  the  sacred  books 
that  he  died,  for  fear  that  it  might  be  said  afterward,  on  account  of  his  super- 
abundant virtue,  that  he  was  gone  to  the  Divinity  ;  and  Philo,  Vita  Mosis,  iii. 
§  39,  says  he  was  buried,  ur/i)ivbc  TiapovToc;,  ch/?.ov6ri  ;:(£pa'ii>  ov  6v?/Talg,  a7i2,'  aOavciToir 
dwdfieciv.  The  Rabbins  sought  to  read  sometliing  strange  into  Deut.  xxxiv.  5, 
and  explained  the  ""S"/],'  :  "  Moses  the  servant  of  the  Lord  died  there  in  the  laud 
of  Moab,  at  the  montJi  of  Jehovah.''''  From  this  arose  the  Rabbinical  doctrine  of 
the  death  by  a  kiss  ;  the  mo7-s  osculi,  which  implies  deliverance  from  death.  It 
means  rather  :  "  according  to  the  mouth  of  the  Lord,"  according  to  the  divine 
word  or  command.  The  expression  refers  to  the  earlier  divine  declaration,  that 
Moses  should  not  be  allowed  to  see  the  ])romised  land,  but  should  die  before 
that  time.  The  position  of  the  New  Testament  to  the  death  of  Moses  is  peculiar. 
While  Hel).  xi.  40  says  of  the  Old  Covenant  fathers,  thnt  they  "  are  not  per- 
fected without  us,"  making  their  Tt?.eio)aig  dependent  on  the  completion  of  the 
New  Testament  work  of  redemption  ;  the  New  Testament  history  of  the  trans- 
figuration, where  Moses  appears  with  Elijah,  Matt.  xvii.  3,  Luke  ix.  30  f.  (in 
which  latter  passage  the  o(pdivTtg  iv  I'lu^ij,  is  particularly  significant),  presupposes 
Moses  as  perfected  for  the  heavenly  life.  If  justice  is  done  to  all  the  passages, 
we  must  say,  with  Stier  {Words  of  the  Lord  Jchns,  in  Matt,  xvii.):  "  A  wonderful 
exception  is  made  with  the  bodies  of  these  two  fiom  th«  common  lot  of  death  ; 
although  the  lawgiver  actually  died  on  account  of  sin,  and  the  prophet  was 
already  more  nearly  raised  to  the  victory  over  death." — The  passage  Jude  9  refers 
to  a  legend  which,  according  to  Origen,  TTtpl  «p,v<v)i^,  iii.  2,  is  taken  from  the 
apocryphal  Ascensio  Mosis,  and  has  also  found  its  way  into  the  Targum  of  Jona- 
than in  Deut.  xxxiv.  6.  According  to  it,  Satan,  referring  to  the  murder  of  the 
Egyptian,  Ex.  ii.  12,  is  said  to  have  withstood  the  archangel  Michael,  to  whom 
the  burial  of  Moses  was  given  in  charge  by  God.— The  Jewish  fables  on  the  life 
and  death  of  Moses  are  collected  in  the  Rabbinicjil  treatise  "  de  Vita  Mosis," 
translated  into  Latin  by  Gilbert  Gaulmyn,  and  republished  by  Gfrorer,  in  the 
work,  Prophetce  veteres  pseudepigrajdii,  1840,  p.  303  fF. 

(3)  The  unique  importance  of  Moses  is  es[H'eially  seen  when  we  compare  the 
position  of  Joshua  with  that  of  Moses.  Joshua  is  simply  a  leader,  lie  has  no 
other  theocratic  power  ;  in  particular,  he  never  perfcnms  priestly  functions,  and  is 
subordinate  in  rank  to  the  high  priest.  In  the  latter  connection,  Cassel  (on 
Judg.  i.  1,  in  Lange's  Commentary)  has  well  remarked,  that  Moses  is  always 
named  before  Aaron,  but  when  Joshua  is  named  along  with  the  priest  Eleazar, 
the  name  of  the  priest  always  stands  first  (c>  mp.  Num.  xxxiv.  17,  Josh.  xiv.  1, 
xvii.  4,  xix.  51,  xxi.  1). 


§  32.]    OCCUPATION  OF  CANAAN.      EXTEIIMINATION  OF  CANAANITES.      81 

III.      THE    SETTLEMENT    OF    ISKAEL    IN    THE    HOLY    LAND. 

§32. 

OccAipation  of  Canaan.     Extermination  of  tlie  Canaanites. 

After  Joshua  had  been  confirmed  in  his  office  of  leader  by  Jehovah  (Josh, 
i.  1-9),  the  passage  of  tlie  Jordan  ensued  in  a  miraculous  way,  as  a  pledge 
to  the  people  that  the  same  mighty  God  who  was  with  Moses  would  reveal 
Himself  also  under  the  new  leader  (iv.  14,  22-24),  and  therefore  this  event  is  ex- 
pressly placed  side  by  side  with  the  march  through  the  Red  Sea  (iv.  23  ;  P.s. 
cxiv.  3  fi.).  The  people  encamped  in  the  plain  of  Jericho  (Josh.  iv.  13),  and 
here  first  the  circumcision  of  those  born  during  the  march  through  the  wilderness 
was  completed,  and  the  people  entered  on  the  enjoyment  of  the  good  things  of 
the  Holy  Land  with  the  first  passover  festival  (v.  2-12).  The  key  to  the  land 
was  won  by  the  conquest  of  Jericho  (chap,  vi.);  on  this  followed,  after  the  curse 
was  expiated  which  came  on  the  people  by  Achan's  disobedience  (chap.  vii. ; 
comp.  Hos.  ii.  17)  (1),  the  taking  of  Ai,  the  second  fortified  place  of  central 
Canaan  (Josh.  viii.).  The  promulgation  of  the  law  from  Gerizim  and  Ebal, 
ordained  in  Deut.  xxvii.  could  now  take  place  (viii.  30-35)  ;  and  in  accordance 
with  the  command  in  Deut.  xxvii.  4-8,  the  law  was  written  on  stones  plastered 
with  lime  (2).  By  a  new  victorious  campaign  against  the  southern  (chap,  x.), 
and  another  against  the  northern  tribes  of  Canaan,  the  conquest  of  the  land  in  a 
general  sense  was  completed.  The  D'^.n  (ban,  devotion  as  a  curse),  enjoined  in 
Deut.  vii.  2,  xx.  16-18,  comp.  Ex.  xxiii.  32  f.,  xxxiv.,  12  if.,  was  executed  on  a 
number  of  Canaanitish  towns.  The  attempt  had  been  made,  but  in  vain,  to  in- 
terpret in  a  milder  form  this  command  to  exterminate  the  Canaanites,  by  suppos- 
ing that  peace  was  first  to  be  offered  to  the  Canaanite  towns,  and  if  they  refused 
this  offer  they  were  to  be  exterminated  ;  but  in  Deut.  xx.  10  ff.,  to  which  pas- 
sage this  view  appeals,  this  course  of  action  (comp.  ver.  15)  is  only  prescribed  in 
reference  to  foreign  enemies  not  Canaanites.  Or  we  are  referred  to  Josh.  xi.  20, 
according  to  which  the  Canaanites  themselves,  by  hardening  their  hearts,  incur- 
red the  execution  of  the  judgment — a  perfectly  correct  proposition,  but  one 
which  does  not  prevent  us  from  understanding  the  decree  of  extermination  in  an 
unqualified  sense.  It  is  no  less  erroneous  to  seek  to  justify  the  extermination  of 
the  Canaanites  by  an  older  claim  to  Canaan,  inherited  by  Israel  from  the  time  of 
the  patriarchs.  Passages  like  Gen.  xii.  6,  xiii.  7,  oppose  this  in  the  most  definite 
manner.  The  Old  Testament  knows  no  other  ground  for  the  assignment  of  the 
land  to  Israel  than  the  free  grace  of  Jehovah,  to  whom  it  belonged  ;  and  no 
other  ground  for  the  blotting  out  of  the  Canaanite  tribes  than  the  divine  justice, 
which,  after  these  tribes  have  filled  up  the  measure  of  their  sins  in  unnatural 
abominations  (comp.  Lev.  xviii.  27  f.,  Deut.  xii.  31),  breaks  in  at  last  in  ven- 
geance, after  long  waiting  (comp.  Gen.  xv.  16).  But  Israel  is  threatened  with 
exactly  the  same  judgment  (comp.  also  Deut.  viii.  19  f.,  xiii.  12  ff..  Josh,  xxiii. 
15  f.)  if  it  become  guilty  of  the  sins  of  the  tribes  on  whom  it  executes  the  divine 
judgment  with  the  sword. 


82  TttE   HISTORY   OP   REVELATION.  [§   ^-2. 

(1)  On  Hos.  ii.  17. — After  it  has  been  said  in  ver.  10  that  God,  in  the  future 
restoration  of  Ilis  people,  will  lead  them  into  the  wilderness  and  speak  to  their 
hearts  (comp.  §  28,  note  1),  the  prophet  goes  on  to  saj-,  "  and  I  will  give  her  her 
vineyards  from  thence" — that  is,  immediately  on  her  leaving  the  wilderness, 
ensues  the  introduction  to  the  promised  land,  with  its  vine-clad  hills, — "  and  the 
valley  of  Achor  for  the  door  of  hope."  This  points  back  to  the  narrative  in 
Josh.  vii.  Jericho  had  fallen,  and  all  seemed  prosperous  for  Israel.  Then  a  part 
of  the  army  was  defeated  by  the  inhabitants  of  Ai.  It  was  revealed  to  Joshua 
that  a  curse  was  on  the  army  ;  for  Achan  had  kept  to  himself  something  from 
the  booty  of  .Tericho,  contrary  to  the  strict  command  of  God.  Then  Joshua  said 
to  Achan  :  "As  thou  hast  troubled  us,  so  let  Jehovah  trouble  thee  to-day  ;" 
and  from  this  comes  the  name  of  the  valley  of  "'i^l'.  Achan  was  stoned,  and 
tliereby  the  curse  taken  from  the  peo])le  ;  Ai  was  conquered,  and  thus  the  key  to 
the  land  was  won.  So  the  valley  of  sorrow  became  tne  gate  of  hope.  It  is  easy 
to  recognize  the  prophet's  meaning  :  when  God  redeems  His  people,  everything 
must  work  for  its  good. 

(2)  On  Josh.  viii.  30-85  ;  Deut.  xxvii.  4-8. — Here,  if  anywhere,  it  is  a  true  say- 
ing, that  against  many  assumptions  of  the  recent  criticism  the  very  stones  cry  out. 
Nowhere  in  classical  literature  is  there  such  an  example  of  recklessness  as  that 
which  relegates  the  whole  history  of  the  transaction  at  Gerizirn  and  Ebal  without 
more  ado  to  the  sphere  of  myths.  The  Egyptian  monuments  show  that  it  was  an 
ancient  Egyptian  custom  first  to  plaster  the  stone  walls  of  buildings,  and  also 
monumental  stones  that  were  to  be  painted  with  figures  and  hieroglyphics,  with 
a  plaster  of  lime  and  gypsum,  into  which  the  figures  were  then  worked  ;  thus  it 
was  possible  in  Egypt  to  engrave  on  the  walls  the  most  extended  inscrip- 
tions. In  this  manner  Deut.  xxvii.  4-8  must  be  understood,  and  in  this  manner 
it  was  accomplished  by  Joshua.  It  is  not  to  be  explained,  as  formerly  was  often 
done,  by  saying  that  the  law  was  engraved  on  the  stones,  and  then  the  lime  was 
to  serve  either  to  make  the  writing  stand  out  more  clearly,  or  to  protect  it  against 
the  weather.  If  this  were  so,  it  is  not  conceivable  that  a  law  of  any  great  extent 
could  have  been  transcribed  upon  these  stones.  That  we  are  not  here  to  think  of 
the  whole  Pentateuch,  compare  §  16,  note. 

(3)  The  extermination  of  the  Canaanites  has,  as  is  well  known,  been  a  very 
special  topic  of  discussion,  and  has  been  defended  in  many  cases  on  very  doubt- 
ful grounds.  Hengstenberg,  Genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch,  ii.  p.  387-417,  has 
treated  the  matter  best.  At  the  first  glance,  the  attempt  seems  most  plausible 
which  seeks  to  render  the  extermination  of  the  Canaanites  somewhat  less  in- 
human, by  pointing  to  an  old  claim  of  Israel  on  Palestine.  But  this  is  out  of  the 
question,  if  we  look  at  the  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  in  which  the  relation 
of  the  people  to  the  land  allotted  to  them  is  brought  into  closer  view.  It  is  true 
that  Deut.  xxxii.  8  contains  the  thought,  that  when  different  regions  were  al- 
lotted to  the  nations  of  the  eartii  by  Divine  Providence,  regard  was  had  to  the 
place  where  in  later  ages  the  peoj^le  of  revelation  were  to  have  their  historical 
development  (comp.  §  22.  note  1).  But  how  did  they  get  this  place  ?  In  Genesis 
the  distinct  impression  is  conveyed  that  the  ancestors  of  the  nation  were 
strangers  in  Canaan.  For  this  reason,  in  Gen.  xii.  6  and  xiii.  7  it  is  expressly 
stated  that  at  that  time,  the  Canaanites  and  Perizzites  were  already  in  the  land. 
Stephen,  Acts  vii.  5,  declares  the  same  thing  with  the  greatest  emphasis  :  "  He 
gave  him  no  inheritance  in  it,  not  even  a  foot-breadth,  and  jjiomised  that  He 
would  give  it  him,"  etc.  The  view  presented  above  is  alone  in  accordance  with 
the  Old  Testament.  oSTow  it  is  certainly  true  that  this  Old  Testament  God  is  a 
dreadful  God,  as  we  are  repeatedly  told.  But  we  are  to  remember  that  the  God 
who  rules  in  the  history  of  the  universe  is  in  fact  this  same  dreadful  God.  It  is 
undeniable,  that  many  nations  have  been  swept  away,  and  have  experienced  a  like 
fate.  Who  has  ordained  this  ?  The  difference  between  the  view  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  of  other  histories  lies  simply  in  this,  that  where  the  latter  perhaps 
see  nothing  but  tragical  crises  of  history,  the  former  emphasizes  tiie  moral  ele- 
ment, according  to  which  nothing  occurs  without  reason,  and  this  reason  lies  in 


§    33.]    DIVISION    OF   THE    LAND.      CHARACTER    OF    PROMISED    LAND.       83 

the  divine  justice.  It  is  quite  unnecessary  to  add  to  tliis  any  artificial  apologeti- 
cal  c?)nsiderations.  |Comp.  the  remarks  of  Prof.  George  P.  Fislier  in  the  North 
American  Review,  1883.]     Geikie,  Hours  with  the  Bible,  ii.  396-402. 

§33. 

Division  of  the  Land.      Character  of  the  Promised  Land.     Israel  at  the  Close  of  this 

Period. 

As  the  power  of  the  Canaanites  in  general  was  broken,  the  Israelites  now,  in 
the  seventh  year  after  their  entrance,  as  is  to  be  concluded  from  Josh.  xiv.  10, 
began  the  division  of  the  land,  although  it  was  not  yet  in  all  parts  completely 
vanquished  (s.  xiii.  3  ff.)  (1).  Eleazar  the  priest,  and  Joshua,  with  the  chiefs  of 
the  tribes,  managed  the  business  of  division  (3).  First,  the  most  powerful  tribes 
were  provided  for  :  Judah  receiving  the  southern  portion  of  the  land  ;  Joseph, 
that  is,  Ephraim  and  the  other  half  of  Manasseh,  being  settled  in  the  middle. 
But  a  mistake  had  been  made  in  the  first  calculation,  so  that  afterwards,  in  the 
assignment  of  territory  to  the  seven  remaining  tribes,  Benjamin,  Dan,  and 
Simeon  had  to  be  put  into  land  already  apportioned.  The  sanctuary  was  removed 
from  Gilgal  to  Shiloh  (xviii.  1),  which  is  situated  pretty  nearly  in  the  middle  of 
the  land  on  this  side  Jordan,  in  the  territory  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim,  to  which 
Joshua  himself  belonged,  and  there  it  remained  till  toward  the  end  of  the  time 
of  the  judges  (3).  The  division  of  the  land  was  carried  out,  so  that  not  merely 
the  limits  of  the  tribal  territories  were  fixed,  but  inside  these  also  the  districts  of 
the  families  (4) .  Thus  the  life  of  tribe  and  family  remained  the  basis  of  civil 
society.  This  certainly  fostered  a  disposition  to  maintain  the  interests  of  the 
tribes  at  the  cost  of  the  national  cause,  in  times  when  there  was  no  powerful 
central  authority,  and  every  one  did  what  seemed  right  to  him  ;  but  it  also  insured 
the  propagation  of  the  faith  and  customs  of  the  fathers  within  the  family  circle 
(5),  when  declensions  began  to  grow  frequent.— Thus  the  "  good  land"  (Ex.  iii.  8  ; 
Deut.  iii.  35,  viii.  7-9),  "  the  ornament  of  all  lands"  (Ezek.  xx.  6,  comp.  with 
Jer.  iii.  19,  Dan.  viii.  9,  xi.  IG),  was  won,  where,  on  the  basis  of  a  life  of  hus- 
bandry requiring  regular  industry,  the  jieople  were  to  be  matured  for  the  fulfil- 
ment of  their  destiny  in  quiet  and  retirement  (Num.  xxiii.  9  ;  Deut.  xxxiii.  38  ; 
comp.  with  Mic.  vii.  14).  The  separation  from  other  peoples  commanded  in  the 
law  (see  specially  Lev.  xx.  34,  26)  was  made  easier  by  the  secluded  position  of  the 
land,  which  was  inclosed  on  the  so.uth  and  east  by  great  wildernesses,  on  the  north 
by  the  high  mountains  of  Lebanon,  and  which  even  on  the  west  was  unfavorably 
situated  for  maritime  intercourse,  since  the  coast  has  few  landing-places  or  inlets. 
On  the  other  hand,  by  the  situation  of  the  land  in  the  midst  of  the  cultivated  na- 
tions which  figure  in  ancient  history  (comp.  Ezek.  v.  5,  xxxviii.  12),  as  well  as  by 
means  of  the  great  highways  of  the  old  world  which  led  past  its  borders,  the 
future  theocratic  calling  of  the  people  was  made  possible  (6).  "  This  union  of  the 
greatest  contrasts  in  respect  to  local  position,  viz.,  the  utmost  isolation  and  retire- 
ment, combined  with  everything  to  favor  wide  connections  on  all  sides  with  the 
chief  civilized  regions  of  the  old  world  by  commercial  intercourse  and  language, 
by  sea  as  well  as  by  land,  with  the  Arabians,  Indians,  Egyptians,  Syrians,  Armeni- 
ans, and  with  the  Greek  and  Roman  world  of  culture,  in  their  common  centre,  local 


84  thj:  history  of  revf.latiox.  [§  3o. 

and  historical,  is  a  characteristic  peculiiirity  of  this  promised  land  which  was 
destined  from  the  beginning  to  be  the  home  of  the  chosen  peojile"  (Ritter, 
Erdhunde,  xv.  1,  p.  11).  Two  parts  of  the  promise  given  to  the  patriarchs  were 
fulfilled — the  entrance  of  Israel  into  their  rest  in  the  promised  land,  and  the  in- 
crease of  the  people  like  the  stars  of  heaven  (Deut.  x.  22).  But  the  dominion 
over  the  nations  (Gen.  xxvii.  29,  xlix.  10)  was  not  yet  obtained,  the  blessing  of 
Abraham  was  not  yet  come  to  the  heathen  ;  nay,  a  new  cycle  of  history  must 
arise,  in  which  centuries  of  contest  for  mere  existence  were  ordained  for  the  peo- 
ple.—Since  the  possession  of  the  land  was  always  in  danger  from  the  numerous 
remnants  of  the  Canaanites,  a  part  of  whom  were  dispersed,  and  a  part  not  yet 
touched  by  the  march  of  conquest,  as  well  as  from  the  Philistine  Pentapolis 
(Josh.  xiii.  2  f.),  which  had  arisen  in  the  low  country  on  the  coast  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean Sea  and  from  the  neighborhood  of  hostile  peoples  on  the  east,  a  faithful 
union  of  the  tribes  in  firm  connection  with  the  theocratic  centre  became  an  urgent 
necessity.  And  at  first,  on  the  occasion  related  in  Josh,  xxii.,  the  consciousness 
of  the  theocratic  unity  of  the  people  showed  itself  still  in  full  strength,  and 
Joshua  exerted  himself  at  two  gatherings  of  the  people  which  he  held  toward 
the  close  of  his  life  (chap,  xxiii.  and  xxiv.)  to  reanimate  this  feeling,  and  to 
repress  the  idolatry  that  was  springing  up  among  them  (xxiv.  23,  comp.  with 
ver.  15).  The  people  too  were  willing  to  renew  the  covenant  with  Jehovah,  and 
remained,  on  the  whole,  true  to  it  as  long  as  the  race  lived  that  had  seen  God's 
great  deeds  (xxiv.  31  ;  Judg.  ii.  7). 

(1)  One  of  the  contradictions  which  are  said  to  have  been  found  in  the  book 
of  Joshua  is  this  :  On  the  one  hand  the  book  ascribes  the  vanquishing  of  the 
Canaanites  and  the  conquest  of  the  land  to  Joshua  (xi.  16-23,  xii.  7  ff.,  comp. 
xxi.  41  flE.,  xxii.  4);  and  yet,  on  the  other  (chap,  xiii.),  an  account  of  uncon- 
quered  lands  is  given,  and  the  necessity  is  expressed  of  making  still  more  exten- 
sive conquests.  The  matter  stands  thus.  When  it  is  said,  xi.  23,  "  So  Joshua 
took  the  whole  land,"  this  means:  the  conquest  of  the  land  mi  gciiend' was 
finished.  This  does  not  exclude  the  fact  that  in  detail,  as  is  explained  in  chap, 
xiii.,  there  was  still  very  much  to  be  done.  That  the  conquest  was  looked  upon 
as  on  the  whole  complete,  is  shown  in  the  second  part  of  the  book  (chap,  xiii.- 
xxii.),  by  the  fact  that  he  caused  the  parts  which  were  not  conquered  to  be 
divided. — The  second  jmrt  of  the  hooh  is  of  immense  value  for  hihUcal  geograijJiy. 
If  we  compare  these  sections  with  the  parallel  passages,  1  Cliron.  iv.  28-32,  vi. 
39-66,  we  see  how  difficult  it  would  have  been  in  a  later  time  to  write  down  and 
represent  everything  for  the  first  time,  as  those  must  suppose  who  make  the  book 
much  more  modern. 

(2)  To  aid  in  this  assignment  of  territory,  a  sort  of  map  had  been  sketched.  I 
think  Ritter  is  right  in  thus  understanding  Josh,  xviii.  4-9  ;  see  his  History  of 
Oeograpliy  and  Discovery,  edited  by  Daniel,  p.  7  f.,  where  we  are  reminded  that 
the  knowledge  necessary  for  this  might  have  been  brought  from  Egypt,  where 
land  measurement  was  a  very  ancient  thing,  as  the  division  of  fields  required  to 
be  newly  adjusted  each  year  after  the  overflow  of  the  Nile. 

(3)  [The  strong  evidence  from  this  passage  for  the  existence  of  the  tabernacle  is 
rather  summarily  disposed  of  by  the  criticism  of  Wellhausen.  He  says  it  belongs 
to  the  priests'  codex  and  connects  it  directly  with  xiv.  1-5,  while  xiv.  6  and  xviii. 
2-10  cire  assigned  to  the  Jchovist  (p.  365  f.):  if  it  belonged  to  the  priests'  codex,_it 
arose  from  the  same  deception  as  that  whole  legislation.  He  regards  1  Sam.  ii. 
22  b  as  certainly,  and  1  K.  viii.  4  as  probably  an  interpolation  (p.  45  f.);  for  the 
former  passage  is  "  poorly  attested  and  its  contents  are  suspicious."] 


§   33.]    DIVISION"    OP   THE   LAND.      CHARACTER    OF    PROMISED    LAND.       85 

(4)  Hence  the  regularly  recurring  Dn^n|)K/r37  in  the  charter  of  division,  Josh, 
xviii.  f. — The  name  0"?/^  (Mic.  v.  1)  was  conferred  metaphorically  on  the  more 
notable  towns  which  were  the  chief  places  of  the  tribes.  From  this  we  can  un- 
derstand how  the  towns  themselves  were  then  further  personified  and  inserted  in 
the  tribal  registers,  in  which  local  dependence  is  represented  as  genealogical 
descent  (see  specially  1  Chron.  ii.  42  fiF.,  and  Bertheau  on  the  passage,  iv.  4  if., 
etc.).     Art.  "  Stamme  Israels,"  in  Herzog,  1st  ed. 

(5)  Thus  various  callings  readily  became  hereditary,  and  there  were  families 
which,  according  to  1  Chron.  iv.  14,  xxi.  23,  formed  themselves  directly  into 
trade  guilds.  Similarly,  in  1  Chron.  ii.  55,  families  of  Sopherim  (scribes)  are 
mentioned.  Also  ia  the  names,  ii.  53,  names  of  occupations  are  perhaps  con- 
tained, as  Jerome  conjectured. 

(6)  One  of  these  old  national  roads,  the  northern,  led  from  Central  Asia  past 
Damascus  to  the  Mediterranean  Sea  ;  the  other  in  tlie  south,  by  Iduniea  to  Egypt 
(comp.  the  "  Remarks  on  Gen.  xiv."  by  Tuch  in  the  Zcitschr.  der  deutsclien  mor- 
genlawl.  Oeselhchaft,  i.  1847,  p.  161  ff.*). — A  first  consequence  of  the  position  of 
Israel  in  the  midst  of  the  nations  was,  that  it  courted  the  powers  of  the  world, 
and  was  chastised  by  all,  so  that  all  became  instruments  of  jud<inient  on  Israel. 
But  on  the  other  side,  it  was  this  central  position  which  made  this  land  fit  for 
the  starting-point  of  the  religion  of  the  world. 

*  Reprinted  in  the  second  edition  of  Tuch's  Genesis. 


SECOND    SECTION. 

THE  DOCTKmES   AND   ORDINANCES   OF  MOSAISM. 

§34. 

Survey. 

This  section  is  divided  as  follows  : 

1.  The  doctrine  of  Ood  and  His  relation  to  the  world,  which  doctrine  is  to  be 
treated  so  that  it  may  appear  how  God's  theocratic  and  revealed  relation  is  rooted 
in  the  Mosaic  idea  of  God. 

3.  The  doctrine  of  man  and  his  relatioji  to  God,  which  again  is  to  be  so  exhibited 
that  it  may  appear  how  the  presupposition  of  the  covenant  relation  in  which  God 
is  to  stand  to  him  is  given  in  the  idea  of  man, 

3.  The  law  covenant  and  the  theocracy,  in  which  is  completed  the  Mosaic  stage  of 
communion  between  God  and  man. 


FIRST   DIVISION. 


THE  DOCTRINE   OF  GOD   AND  HIS   RELATION   TO 
THE   WORLD. 

FIRST   CHAPTER. 

THE  MOSAIC   IDEA   OF   GOD. 

§  35. 

Survey. 

The  fundamental  points  in  the  Mosaic  idea  of  God  are  the  following  : 

1.  The  most  general  names  for  the  Divine  Being  are  7X,  Hi /i?,  D'i^^l!?,  "^il!!,    '% 
which  are  also  made  use  of  outside  of  the  religion  of  the  Old  Testament. 

2.  The  divine  name  "11^  "^X  is  the  first  that  leads  into  the  sphere  of  revelation. 

3.  But  the  divine  name  which  properly  belongs  to  the  Old  Testament  revela- 
tion is  nin",  .Tehovan. 


§    ,30.]      THE  MOST  GEKEUAL  DESIGXATIONS  OF  TTIE  DIVINE  BEING.  8? 

4.  The  idea  of  Jeliovali  ^vas  more  exactly  delined  after  the  jounding  of  the 
theocracy  as  that  of  the  lioly  God,  in  which  essential  definition  the  attributes  of 
divine  justice  and  of  the  jealous  God  are  rooted,  as  well  as  the  attributes  of  the 
gracious  (pJH)  and  merciful  God  (D^ni). 

Tn  these  stages  the  idea  of  God  is  so  unfolded  that  the  higher  stages  do  not 
destroy  the  lower,  but  embrace  them  (1). 

(1)  It  is  a  mistake  to  bring  the  theological  divisions  of  a  later  period  into  Biblical 
Theology,  and  to  treat  God's  attributes  according  to  a  preconceived  scheme. 
Biblical  Theology  traces  the  religion  of  revelation  in  its  rise  and  development,  and 
finds  for  the  definition  of  the  idea  of  God  a  gradually  advancing  series  of  state- 
ments concerning  the  divine  essence.  Genesis  gives  only  the  general  characteristics 
of  the  divine  nature  under  No.  1,  the  ''H?'  7K  under  No.  2,  and  the  name  Jehovah 
by  anticipation.  The  divine  essence  conceived  of  as  Jehovah  unfolds  itself  from 
Ex.  iii.  onward,  and  at  the  founding  of  the  theocracy  the  divine  holiness  first  ap- 
pears. We  seek  in  vain  through  the  whole  of  Genesis  for  a  passage  characteriz- 
ing God  as  the  Holy  One.  After  the  first  breach  of  the  covenant  which  called 
forth  the  divine  '>^^'^^  [jealousy],  the  energy  of  the  divine  sanctity,  we  find  God 
described  also  for  the  first  time  as  the  gracious,  merciful,  long-suffering.  Tiie  pro- 
phetic theology  adds  the  definition  of  Jehovah  as  the  Lord  of  hosts  ;  this  concep- 
tion is  wanting  in  the  whole  of  the  Pentateuch  and  the  book  of  Joshua  (also  in 
Judges).  The  designation  of  God  as  wise  is  also  wanting  in  the  Pentateuch, 
although  certainly  the  wisdom  of  the  artists  who  worked  upon  the  sanctuary 
is  traced  back  to  divine  communication.  It  was  reserved  for  more  developed  re- 
flection (especially  in  the  books  of  the  Hhokhma)  to  represent  wisdom  as  an  at- 
tribute of  God,  and  to  acknowledge  in  it  the  principle  of  the  order  of  the 
world. 


I.    THE   MOST   GENERAL   DESIGNATIONS  OP   THE   DIVINE   BEING,  EL,   ELOAH,  ELOHIM, 

EL-ELYON    (1). 

§36. 

The  most  common  designation  of  the  Divine  Being  in  the  Old  Testament  is 
^' ■  ^>  the  plural  of  ^li '^.  The  word  in  the  singular  occurs  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment almost  exclusively  in  poetical  language,  with  the  exception  of  the  later 
books  composed  under  Aramaic  influence.  But  j^  is  to  be  counted  the  oldest 
Semitic  name  of  God.  It  apjiears  in  a  number  of  the  oldest  names  of  men  (Gen. 
iv.  18,  7>?'ino,  7Xl7!ir\p  ;  and  also  in  Ishmaelitish  and  Edomitish  names,  xxv.  13, 
7X3"]X,  a  son  of  Ishmael  ;  xxxvi.  4-3,  ^X'^JO).  This  name  also  passed  to  the 
Phoenicians  as  a  name  of  Saturn,  their  highest  god.  As  a  name  of  the  true  God, 
1^  is  not  frequent  in  the  prose  o'f  the  Old  Testament.  It  hardly  ever  appears  ex- 
cept with  the  article  '^T},  or  in  connection  with  a  following  genitive,  or  an  attri- 
bute annexed  in  some  other  way.  That  7i<  stands  lower  thanD7V7J<  is  seen  by  the 
climactic  formula  Josh.  xxii.  22,  (Ps.  1.  1).  The  meiming  of  the  root  7lN  (to  be 
strong,  powerful)  shows  that  the  original  sense  of  .  j<  is  '  the  powerful,  strong.'" — 
Two  different  views  exist  as  to  the  etymological  explanation  of  nnX.  According 
to  the  one,  vN  and  Oi^^.  are  to  be  regarded  as  cognate  jmmitive  substantives, 
whose  original  sense,  as  shown  by  the  verb  v^iN,  is  that  of  power  (2).  According 
to  this,  the  verb  HiX  (Arab.  aliJia)  is  a  denominative.     According  to  the  other  y'ww, 


88  THE    DOCTRINES   AND    ORDINANCES    OF    MOSAISM.  [g    oC. 

'^j>  and  n^^^^arc  etymologically  dlsiinct,  and  the  latter  is  to  be  derived  from  the 
root  aliha,  which  means  stiqmit,  2:jnim-o  perculsus  fuit  (as  also  restless,  discon- 
nected movement  lies  in  the  related  root  waliha,)  in  distinction  from  alaha,  to 
honor,  the  denominative  character  of  which  is  not  to  be  doubted  (3).  Di /*<,  as 
an  abstract  verbal  noun,  would  originally  denote _^£?t£I?  ^^^  ^^'^'^  further  the  ob- 
ject of  terror,  and  thus  corresponds  with  the  divine  name  in?  (Gen.  xxxi.  43,  53), 
and  the  Greek  df/Sof.  The  latter  view  is  probably  the  more  correct,  since  at  least 
the  noun  Hibx  has  not  the  character  of  a  primitive.  If  power  or  might  is  indi- 
cated by  the  noun  '7X,  this  idea  is,  on  the  other  hand,  only  subjectively  given  in 
the  name  Hi^^.,  which  expresses  the  impression  made  by  power.  Eloah_is,  accord- 
ing to  this,  the  powerjvhi^hawjik^nsje?^^  That  tlie  natural  man  finds  himself, 
when  confronted  by  the  Divinity,  chiefly  moved  by  a  feeling  of  fear,  is  expressed 
m  this  designation  of  God  (4). 

The  plural  U'TJh'^  is  peculiar  to  the  Old  Testament ;  it  appears  as  a  name  of  God 
only  in  old  Hebrew,  and  in  none  of  the  other  Semitic  languages  ;  even  in  the 
biblical  Chaldee,  |'n'7^  only  means  gods.  The  meaning  of  this  plural  is  not 
numerical,  either  in  the  sense  in  which  some  older  theologians  understand  it,  who 
seek  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity  in  the  name  (5),  or  in  the  sense  that  the  expres- 
sion had  originally  a  polytheistic  meaning,  and  only  at  a  later  period  acquired  a 
singular  sense  (6)  ;  for  the  Old  Testament  monotheism  was  not  developed  on  a 
polytheistic  basis  (comp.  §  43,  1). — A  third  view,  that  originally  the  plural  in- 
cluded the  one  God  together  with_the  higher  spirits  around  Him  has  against  it 
the  general  argument,  that  in  those  ancient  times  the  idea  of  angels  is  not  prom- 
inent. This  view  cannot  be  sustained  by  appealing  to  Gen.  i.  26  ("  Let  us  make 
man''),  since  the  whole  of  this  record  of  creation  shows  no  trace  of  a  co-operation 
of  the  angels,  and  ver.  27  continues  in  the  singular  (7).  It  would  be  more 
natural  to  interpret  Gen.  xxxv.  7  ("  The  Elohim  revealed  themselves  to  him")  as 
indicating  that  the  plural  includes  Jehovah  together  with  the  angels,  in  accordance 
with  the  vision  (chap,  xxviii.)  (8). — It  is  much  better  to  explain  Elohim  as  the 
Qucmtitative  plural  (9),  which  is  uscdjo  denote  unlimited  greatness  in  D:P)2', 
heaven,  and  Q'O,  water.  The  plural  signifies  the  hifinite  fulness  of  the  might  and 
power  which  lies  in  the  Divine  Being,  and  thus  passes  over  into  the  intensive 
phiral,  as  Delitzsch  has  named  it.  So  far,  the  old  view  of  a  plural  of  majesty  was 
right  ;  but  it  was  incorrect  to  derive  this  use  from  the  consuetudo  honoris  (10). — 
The  plural  contained  in  ^p'^  is  to  be  explained  in  the  same  way  ;  indeed,  this  plural 
of  majesty  has  also  passed  to  other  titles  of  God  :  O^^np,  Hos.  xii.  1,  Prov.  ix. 
10,  to  which  the  expression  D'tf^np  D'H^K,  Josh.  xxiv.  19,  forms  the  transition  ; 
comp.  further  the  D't?';?  in  Isa.  liv.  5,  Job  xxxv.  10,  and  the  D'Hia  in  Eccles.  xii. 
1  ;  also  the  passage  Gen.  i.  26  is  to  be  explained  thus. 

Now,  since  the  fulness  of  might  lying  in  the  divine  nature  is  expressed  quite 
generally  in  D'ribx,  a  certain  indefiniteness  clings  to  the  word,  as  to  the  Latin 
numen  (11).  The  expression  in  its  indefinite  breadth  does  not  exclude  the  more 
concrete  determinations  of  the  idea  of  God  ;  it  remains  all  through  the  Old  Tes- 
tament the  general  name  of  God  ;  in  fact,  it  is  used  with  special  emphasis  in 
the  Elohistic  psalms.  But  on  account  of  the  uncertainty  of  its  meaning,  D'pK 
can  also  be  used  to  designate  heathen  gods  ;   indeed,  it  is  once  used  (1  Sam. 


§    3G.]       THE  MOST  GENERAL  DESIGNATION'S  OF  THE  DIVINE  BEING.  8'.) 

xxviii.  13,  in  the  mouth  of  the  enchantress)  to  designate  a  suj)ernatural  manifes- 
tation exciting  terror. 

As  a  name  of  the  true  God,  DTi/H  is  regularly  joiwecZ  with  the  singular.  The  ex- 
ceptions are  rare,  and  explicable  from  the  context  of  the  passages.  In  Gen.  xx. 
13  a  heathen  is  addressed  ;  in  Ex,  xxxii.  4,  8,  1  Sam.  iv.  8,  1  Kings  xii.  28,  the 
God  of  Israel  is  spoken  of  from  the  lower  standpoint  of  heathen  conceptions  ; 
and  in  2  Sam.  vii.  23  the  general  notion  of  Deity  lies  in  the  plural  D'll^X  (12). 

The  divine  name  ]'^'X-  '^  (LXX.  6  Qeoq  6  vipiarog),  or  simply  I'''''?]?.  (LXX.  vipiGTor), 
is  also  used  outside  of  the  sphere  of  revelation.  The  name  appears  as  a  designa- 
tion of  God,  the  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  in  the  mouth  of  Melchizedek,  the 
Canaanite  priest-king  (Gen.  xiv.  18)  ;  it  is  the  name  of  the  highest  god,  Saturn, 
in  the  Phoenician  religion,  and  even  serves  in  the  Po^nulus  of  Plautus  as  a  title  (>f 
the  gods  and  goddesses.  It  is  characteristic  that  it  appears  also  in  the  mouth  of 
the  king  of  Babylon  (Isa.  xiv,  14),  probably  to  designate  Bel.  The  Old  Testa- 
ment makes  use  of  the  name  from  the  Tsraelitish  standpoint  only  in  jjoetry  (Num. 
xxiv.  16,  etc.  ;  Deut.  xxxii.  8  ;  Ps.  Ivii.  3,  etc.),  sometimes  in  conjunction  witli 
niD'.  It  is  remarkable  that  the  book  of  Daniel  uses  P(i!,  in  the  plural  of  majesty 
with  a  Hebrew  plural  termination  (Dan.  vii.  18,  22,  25)  in  a  Chaldee  section, 
while  the  Chaldee  plural  of  majesty,  i'P7'?.i  <^oes  not  occur. 

(1)  Compare  my  article  "  Elohini"  in  Herzog's  Eeal-EiicyMop.  xix.  p.  476  ff.,  and 
the  article  by  Delitzsch,  2d  ed.  iv.  186  ff. 

(2)  See  Gesenius,  Thesaurus,  i.  p.  49  ;  Ewald,  Jahri.  der  hibl.  Wissenschaft,  x. 
p.  11. — Ewald  sees  an  abbreviation  of  Hi /^  in  /^,  and  maintains  that  the  former, 
as  shown  by  the  similar  form  of  both  words,  is  the  antithesis  of  E'^J.^!*,  in  which 
God  is  designated  as  the  absolutely  powerful  in  contrast  to  man,  the  absolutely 
weak.  Comp.  also  Ewald's  History  of  the  People  of  Israel,  i.  p.  264  [and  Lehrex 
Oott,  ii.  228,  f.]. 

(3)  See  the  argument  at  large  by  Fleischer  in  Delitzsch's  Comment,  on  Genesis, 
4th  ed.  p.  57  f. 

(4)  If  the  Epicureans  say,  timor  fecit  Deos,  the  converse  may  be  put  thus  :  The 
emotion  called  forth  by  the  thought  of  God  in  the  human  mind  is  that  of  fear,  of 
terror  ;  and  this  is  characteristic  of  the  primitive  form  of  religion  among  sinful 
men. 

(5)  See  the  historical  notices  on  the  trinitarian  interpretation  in  the  above- 
cited  art.,  p.  477.  This  view  no  longer  requires  refutation  ;  still  we  may  say, 
with  Hengstenberg  {Oenuineness  of  the  Pentateuch,  i.  p.  273),  that  even  this 
erroneous  view  has  some  truth  at  its  foundation,  since  the  plural  form,  indicating 
the  inexhaustible  fulness  of  the  Divinity,  serves  to  combat  the  most  dangerous 
enemy  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  viz.  abstract  Monotheism  [above-citi-d 
art.]. 

(6)  The  word  i3'2"jn  is  adduced  as  an  analogous  example  (comp.  Nagelsbach, 
Hehrew  Orammar,  3d  ed.  p.  140  f.),  which  ap])eirs  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  is 
well  known,  in  speaking  of  a  single  household  god  [ilid.^^.  [The  theory  of  the 
originally  polytheistic  meaning  of  the  plural  has  recently  been  maintained  by 
Baudissin,  i.  55  fl.  and  Schultz,  124  f.,  479  f.,  although  both  admit  that  in  the 
Old  Testament,  except  when  applied  to  non-Israelitish  gods,  it  is  always  used  as  a 
singular.  They  believe  that  the  origin  of  the  plural  name  for  the  one  God  can 
hardly  be  explained  except  on  the  supposition  that  a  previous  plurality  of  g^ds 
came  to  be  comprehended  in  the  one  God.  But  admitting,  as  these  scholars  do, 
that  this  plural  expressed,  in  the  conception  of  the  men  of  the  Old  Testament, 
the  plenitude  of  power  in  the  one  God  of  Israel  (so  also  Gesenius),  why  should  it 


90  THE   DOCTRIISrES    AND    ORDINANCES    OF    MOSAISM.  [§    37. 

be  inconceivable  that  the  endeavor  to  exjn-css  this  plenitude  of  power  of  the  one 
God  gave  rise  to  this  plural  form  ?  And  if  the  remark  of  Sehultz,  p.  479,  is  cor- 
rect, that  the  singular  form,  Eloah^  is  clearly  in  its  whole  use  an  aitificial  and 
poetical  word,  and  not  the  ground  form  in  the  language  of  the  nation,  and  if 
consequently  the  plural  existed  before  the  singular,  every  reason  for  holding  that 
it  originally  expressed  a  plurality  of  single  beings  falls  to  the  ground.] 

(7)  From  this  would  flow  the  quite  insignificant  thought  that  God  at  first  called 
out  the  angels  to  take  part  in  the  creation  of  man,  but  completed  the  work 
alone,  according  to  ver.  27  (comp.  §  43,  and  Kcil  on  the  passage)  [ihid.^. 

(8)  [This  view  has  been  again  advanced  on  partially  new  grounds  by  P.  Wurm, 
"  The  Divine  Name,  Elohim,  and  the  relation  of  God  and  Angels  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament,"  in  the  Theol.  Studieii  aus  Wiirttemierg,  1881.  Starting  with  Fleischer's 
etymology,  he  explains  Elohim  as  "  maidfestatioii  from  the  higher,  invisible 
world,  which  awakens  terror  in  man,"  as  "  a  superior  being,  who  reveals  himself 
to  man."  In  that  case,  certainly  the  word  would  be  applicable  to  angels  as  well 
as  to  God.  But  are  the  Aramaic  jTI^?!?  also  beings  who  reveal  themselves,  or  can 
it  be  shown  that  this  name  first  came  through  Hebrew  influence  into  the  Aramaic 
language  ?] 

(9)  The  credit  of  having  pointed  out  this  correct  view  of  the  plural  Elohim  he- 
]ongs  to Dietnch  (Abhandlungen  zi/7-  liehr.  Oramm.  1S4G,  p.  44  ff.,  comp.  with  p.  16 
II.). 

(10)  Akin  to  the  quantitative  use  of  the  plural  is  that  of  the  plural  of  ahstrac- 
tion,  in  which  a  plurality  is  grasped  in  a  higlRr  unity  ;  comp.  exam])les  in 
Ewald's  Larger  Grammar  of  the  Hebrew  Language,  8th  ed.  §  179.  But  it  is  hardly 
correct  to  understand  the  plural  Elohim  as  exactly  an  abstract  word,  as  Hof- 
mann  does  {ScJn-iftheweis,  i.  2d  efl.  p.  77).  The  abstract  form  of  expression  for 
names  of  dignity  (for  example  ^inP),  which  often  appears  in  Aramaic  (see  Ewaid, 
I.e.  §  177  f.),  seems  to  be  rather  the  product  of  a  later  phase  of  the  language, 
which  must  not  be  confounded  with  the  archaic  use  of  the  j^lural  discussed  above. 

(11)  Yet  we  cannot  say,  witii  Hengstenberg  (Genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch,  i.  p. 
273),  that  the  plural  Elohim  also  expresses  a  lower  idea.  Steudel  says  more  cor- 
rectly (Theol.  of  the  Old  Testament,  p.  143),  that  there  is  in  the  name  something 
that  can  be  developed. 

(12)  The  meaning  of  the  passage  2  Sam.  vii.  23  is  :  ''  Where  is  there  a  people 
on  the  earth  to  save  whom  a  god  (even  one  of  the  heathen  gods)  has  gone  ?" 
hence  o'7ri  "IC'X  (Hid.).  — On  Ex.  xxii.  8,  comp.  §  98. — After  what  has  been  re- 
marked above,  it  would  not  be  surprising  if  the  name  D'il^X  should  be  used  for 
the  angels,  who  as  fomf  cpvoeuc  icoivuvoi.  are  often  called  sons  of  God.  Still  this  use 
of  the  word  can  nowhere  be  shown  ;  certainly  not  in  Ps.  viii.  6,  xcvii.  7,  cxxxviii. 
1,  where  the  LXX.  have  translated  it  by  ayys'Xoi  ;  also  not  in  Ps.  Ixxxii.,  where, 
in  spite  of  Hupfeld's  assertion  to  the  contrary,  D'ri^K  does  not  designate  angels, 
but  the  bearers  of  the  judicial  power  in  the  theocracy  [ibid.]. 


II.    EL-SHADDAI. 

§  37. 

The  definition  of  God  enters  the  sphere  of  revelation  in  the  name  'T^  /«,  which 
is  peculiar  to  the  patriarchal  religion  ;  sec  Ex.  vi.  3.  The  word  'l^'J  should  not  be 
understood  as  a  compound  word  (from  ^  =  "'^^  and  "1,  qui  syffiriens  est,  as  des- 
ignating the  divine  aseity)  (1)  ;  but  is  to  be  traced  back  to  the  |  monosyllabic] 
root  tty,  the  fundamental  meaning  of  which  is  ''  to  be  strong  to  show  oneself 
superior,"   frorn  whence  is  forrncd,   in  the   Arabic  shadda,   the  iiirnniiig  lignvit, 


§    37.]  EL-SHADDAI.  91 

Conj.  VIII.  vehemens  fuit,  and  in  the  Hebrew  T\t,  the  meaning  "to  force,  to  lay- 
waste,"  whence  the  play  of  words  in  Joel  i.  15,  Isa.  xiii.  G  (Xb;  n^'P  nJi'3).  Ac- 
cordingly, the  name  is  either  to  be  derived  from  a  stem  mt^,  with  Ewald  {Auxf. 
Lehrl.  8th  ed.  §  155,  c),  according  to  which  it  would  be  an  intensive  form  like 
'7£3p.,  or,  what  is  more  probable,  from  the  stem  "XViJ  with  the  formative  sjll^We 
'—  which  occurs  also  in  other  proper  names  (as  'Jn,  ':di).  It  is  quite  incorrect  to 
^n^^erstand  V  as  a  suffix-form  of  the  first  person  plural,  as  in  ''J'^^  ;  for  while  the 
latter  occurs  in  the  older  language  only  in  addressing  God,  God  Himself  says, 
Gen.  xvii.  1,  xxxv.  11,  "I  am  El-shaddai"  (2).  The  name  characterizes  God  as 
revealing  Ilimself  in  His  might ;  the  LXX.  do  not  understand  the  expression  in  the 
Pentateuch,  but  it  is  correctly  rendered  by  nav-uKpciTup  in  most  joassages  of  Job. 
It  is  no  longer  the  powerful  Divinity  ruling  in  the  world  in  general  that  is  El- 
shaddai,  but  the  God  who  testifies  of  Himself  in  special  deeds  of  power,  by  which 
He  subdues  nature  to  the  ways  of  His  kingdom,  making  the  childless  Abraham 
the  father  of  many  nations  (Gen.  xvii.  1,  xxviii.  3,  comp.  xxxv.  11),  and  who 
causes  that  race  with  which  He  has  entered  into  covenant  to  experience  His 
powerful  presence  in  protection  and  blessing.  Gen.  xliii.  14,  xlviii.  t!.  xlix.  25 
(3).  But  as  soon  as  the  name  Jehovah  unfolds  its  meaning,  the  name  El-shuddai 
falls  back  on  the  one  hand  into  the  list  of  the  more  general  names  of  God ;  thus 
in  Balaam's  parable  it  appears.  Num.  xxiv.  4,  IG,  in  the  same  line  with  /X  and 
jvS^. ;  in  the  book  of  Job,  in  the  same  line  with  h^  and  Hw^.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  is  still_used  at  times  alternately  with  the  name  Jehovah  where  God's  omni- 
potence is  made  preminent  in  contrast  with  human  weakness,  as  in  the  beautiful 
passage  Ruth  i.  20  f.,  or  in  speaking  of  the  revelation  of  God's  overpowering 
judgments,  Joel  i.  15,  Isa.  xiii.  G,  Vs.  Ixviii.  15,  Ezek.  x.  5  ;  also  in  speaking 
of  the  Omnipotent  Protector  of  His  jjeople,  Ps.  xci.  1,  etc. 

The  word  D''l£,  which  in  Deut.  xxxii.  17,  Ps.  cvi.  37,  serves  to  designate  the 
gods  of  the  heathen,  is  scarcely  connected  with  "Tl"^.  as  some  suppose.  It  is  prob- 
ably not  to  be  traced  to  TTI^  as  some  earlier  theologians  wish,  as  if  it  denoted  de- 
structive beings,  but  is  rather  to  be  understood  as  a  participle  of  Tiiy  (Arabic  sdda), 
dominatusfuit,  according  to  which  it  means  "  Lords"  or  "  Rulers." 

(1)  Thus  for  example  Maimonides,  More  Nedochi7n,  ed.  Buxtorf,  p.  144  ff.,  and 
Calvin. 

(2)  Deyling  has  protested  against  deriving  '11?  from  112/,  Ohservationcs  sacrce,  i. 
p.  46  f. :  "  nity  noxiam  potentiam,  omniaque  desolantem  in  scriptura  denotat,  et 
de  vastatione,  per  solos  hostes  facta,  non  per  pestem,  aut  grandinem,  aut  aquarum 
eluviones  usurpatum  reperitur. — Ergo  nomen  niy  a  nity  deductum,  ne  Deum 
quidem  deceret,  sed  Diabolum  potius,  qui  nomen  "^'^  inde  etiam  revera  sortitus 
est." — But  here  Deyling  proceeds  from  the  meaning  "to  lay  waste,"  which  we 
must  regard  as  only  derivative. 

(3)  On  Gen.  xvii.  1  Delitzsch  says  forcibly  :  "DTlSi^  is  the  God  who  creates 
nature  so  that  it  is,  and  supports  it  so  that  it  continues  ;  ""W)  Sx,  the  God  who 
compels  nature  to  do  what  is  contrary  to  itself,  and  subdues  it  to  bow  and  minis- 
ter to  grace." 


93  THE    DOCTIUNES    AND    ORDINANCES    OF    MOSAISM.  [§    38. 

III.    THE    NAME    JEHOVAH    (1). 

§38. 
1.  Pronunciation  and  Grammatical  Explanation  of  the  Name. 

The  special  name  of  God  in  the  Old  Testamciit  is  tlie  tetra<rrammaton  Din\ 
wliich  is  hence  characterized  by  the  Jews  as  ^WkS  [the  name]  k.  tf .  (comp.  Lev. 
xxiv.  11,  Deut.  xxviii.  58),  ^31  NOK/  the  great  name,  nnvpn  U^  nomen.  unicum, 
the  unique  name,  but  in  particular  as  K'^flfpn  02^,  which  latter  expression,  however, 
is  itself  interpreted  in  different  ways  (2). 

The  word  mri''  in  the  Masoretic  text  of  the  Old  Testament  has  in  virtue  of  a 
K'' ri  perjMuum,  the  vowel  pointing  of  'J'^*?  (3).  "Where  'J^i*  already  occurs  in  the 
connection  of  the  sentence  (as  Isa.  xxii.  13,  14,  etc.),  the  pronunciation  of  D'H^!?? 
is  substituted  unless  the  two  words  standing  beside  each  other  belong  to 
different  clauses,  as  in  Ps.  xvi.  2. — The  prohibition  forbidding  the  utterance  of 
the  name  is  derived  by  the  Jews  from  Lev.  xxiv.  16,  in  virtue  of  an  un- 
tenable exposition  of  the  passage  given  in  the  LXX.  (bvo/jd^uv  to  dvo/xa  Kvplov) 
(4).  —  How  old  the  dread  of  uttering  the  name  is,  cannot  be  accurately  fixed. 
The  use  of  Cl^^  [instead  of  "^JH".]  in  a  series  of  psalms  is  not  to  be  de- 
rived from  this.  The  dread  in  question  sprang  from  the  efforts  of  the  later 
Judaism  to  thrust  back  the  Divinity  to  an  unapproachable  distance,  and  every- 
where to  put  something  between  the  Divinity  and  man  (as  e.g.,  where  Jehovah 
in  the  Old  Testament  is  brought  into  connection  with  the  material  world,  His 
tcord  is  substituted  for  Himself).  The  name  ceases  to  be  prominent  in  some  of 
the  latest  Old  Testament  writings,  and  is  regularly  rendered  Kvpiog  by  the  LXX. 
(so  also  in  the  New  Testament)  (5).  Joscphus,  Ant.  xii.  5.  5,  tells  us  of  the 
Samaritans,  that  the  sanctuary  which  they  founded  in  Gerizim  was  avuvvuov 
lepov  [a  temple  without  a  name].  Josephus  himself  declares.  Ant.  ii.  12.  4, 
that  he  was  not  permitted  to  speak  concerning  the  name.  "With  this,  Philo's 
assertion,  de  mut.  nom.  §  2  (ed.  Mang.  i.  580),  and  vit.  Mos.  iii.  25  (ii.  166),  is  to 
be  compared  ;  yet  it  is  remarked  in  the  latter  book,  §  11,  (152),  that  consecrated 
persons  in  the  sanctuary  were  allowed  to  hear  and  to  pronounce  the  name.  Ac- 
cording to  the  tradition  in  Maimonides,  More  Neb.  i.  61,  Jad  chazalca  xiv.  10, 
which  agrees  with  Thamid  vii.  2,  the  name  in  the  early  period  of  the  second  tem- 
ple was  still  uttered  in  the  sanctuary  at  the  pronouncing  of  the  blessing,  and  by 
the  high  priest  on  the  day  of  atonement  ;  but  after  the  death  of  Simon  the  Just, 
that  is,  after  the  first  half  of  the  third  century  B.C.,  it  was  exchanged  there  also 
for  Adhonai,  as  had  been  long  the  practice  outside  the  temple.  The  Jews  main- 
tain that  the  knowledge  of  the  true  pronunciation  of  the  name  has  been  entirely 
lost  since  the  destruction  of  the  temple.  On  the  other  hand,  after  the  sixteenth 
century,  it  became  more  and  more  the  custom  among  Christian  theologians  to 
pronounce  the  name  Jehovah  by  reading  the  K'ri  points  with  the  consonants  mn'  ; 
but  this  pronunciation  was  not  used  by  Reuchlin  (6).  Some  later  theologians, 
as  Joh.  Friedr.  v.  Meyer,  Stier,  and  in  particular  Hoelemann  (in  a  treatise  "  On 
the  Meaning  and  Pronunciation  of  mri',"  in  his  Bilel-studien^  1859),  think  they 


§   38.]      GRAMMATICAL    EXPLANATION    OF   THE   NAME   JEHOVAH.  93 

are  compelled  to  regard  Jehovah  as  the  correct  pronunciation.  According  to 
this,  the  word  would  be  formed,  by  a  quite  unparalleled  construction,  from  '  -  'H; 
in  =  ni.n,  and  ni^  =  nin  (comp.  Stier,  Lehrgehdude  der  Tiehr.  Sprache,  p.  327),  and 
•would  comjirehend  the  three  tenses  [future,  present,  and  past].  This  unprece- 
dented etymology  would  correspond,  it  is  claimed,  with  the  uniqueness  of  the 
divine  nature.  In  support  of  this  view  we  are  referred  principally  to  the  6  wv 
Kol  6  fjv  Koi  6  epx6/Li£voc  in  Rev.  i.  4,  iv.  8  ;  but  it  is  erroneous  to  seek  an  explanation 
of  the  word  in  this  paraphrase  of  the  meaning  of  the  name  (in  fact,  the  succes- 
sion of  the  tenses  in  the  passages  in  the  Apocalypse  would  not  agree  with  the 
above  explanation).  Besides,  kpx6iJ.evog  is  decidedly  not  the  same  as  kao/ucvog  ;  it 
simply  means  the  coming  one;  (7)  and  therefore,  as  soon  as  the  advent  of  the  Lord 
has  become  present,  Rev.  xi.  17  (according  to  the  true  reading)  and  xvi.  5.  6  uv  koI 
6  Tjv  only  is  written  (12).  The  abbreviation  ^T\\  appearing  at  the  end  of  many  per- 
sonal names  {e.g.  ^^'7^,  ^"^I'^T)  cannot  be  satisfactorily  explained  on  the  reading 
Jehovah  (Hoelemann's  explanation  is  artificial),  while  the  abbreviation  in*  or  r  at 
the  beginning  of  names  can  be  justified  by  the  pronunciation  to  be  mentioned 
below. 

Ex.  iii.  13-15  is  the  decisive  passage  for  the  pronunciation  and  grammatical  ex- 
planation of  the  name.  When  Moses  asks  for  the  name  of  the  God  who  sends  him 
forth.  He,  God,  says  :  n'rii^  "l^K  •^v^'??  "  Thus  shalt  thou  say  to  the  children  of 
Israel,  Ebyeh  has  sent  me  unto  you."  Now  when  it  goes  on  to  say,  ver.  15, 
"  Thus  shalt  thou  say,  TWTV  ,  the  God  of  your  fathers,  has  sent  me  unto  you,"  it  is 
clear  that  the  word  mn^  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  noun  formed  from  the  third  person 
of  the  imperfect  of  rTin  (the  older  form  of  H^^H),  and  we  must  read  either  Hiri'  (ri.}n'), 
or,  what  is  also  not  impossible,  since  such  forms  do  occur,  HiHl  (nin").  The  first 
form  is  more  probable  (8).  From  the  pronunciation  J^hve  we  obtain  the  abbre- 
viation Tl'  (which  is  to  be  explained  through  apocope  for  IH'),  and  by  contraction 
from  this,  in'  or  i''  when  it  is  placed  at  the  beginning  of  the  word.  H'  followed 
from  a  still  further  abbreviation  of  ^H'  ;  it  appears  first  in  the  song  of  Moses,  Ex. 
XV.  2,  and  afterward  particularly  in  the  H'  =l77n.  All  the  testimony  given  by 
tradition  concerning  the  pronunciation  of  Jahve  is  that,  according  to  Theodoret 
{qumst.  15  in  Ex.),  the  Samaritans  pronounced  the  name  'lape  (Theodoret  ascribes 
to  the  Jews  the  pronunciation  'Aia,  which  might  give  evidence  of  the  pronuncia- 
tion Jahva)  ;  compare  with  this  Epiphanius,  adv.  hmr.  1.  3.  20  (40)  {kutcl  ' Ap- 
XovTiKuv),  who  likewise  reads  'la,3L  Origen,  c.  Cels.,  gives  the  name  as  'lauia 
(9).  Side  by  side  with  this  there  are,  to  be  sure,  other  accounts.  According  to 
Diodorus,  i.  94,  the  Jews  spoke  the  name  'law  ;  also  Origen  in  the  Commentary  to 
John  i.  1,  and  Theodoret  {qumst.  in  1  Ghron.)  mention  this  pronunciation.  On 
the  other  hand,  Sanchoniathon,  in  Eusebius,  Prcep.  ev.  i.  9,  pronounces  the  name 
"^evu  ;  and  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Strom,  v.  6,  'laov  [unless  it  would  be  more  cor- 
rect to  read  'laoi;/]  (10).  Jerome  on  Ps.  viii.  2  says  :  leglj)otest  Jaho.  But  a  form 
niri'  would  be  quite  contrary  to  the  analogy  of  the  Hebrew  language  (10).  [On 
the  pronunciation  Jeve  (of  which  traces  have  recently  been  found  and  which 
Joachim  de  Floris  (thirteenth  century)  mentions  as  handed  down  by  the  Jews, 
comp.  the  communications  of  Stade  and  Delitzsch  in  Stade's  Zeitschrift  fur  A. 
T.   Wissenschaft,  1881,  p.  346,  and  1882,  p.  173.] 


94  THE    DOCTKIXES    AND    ORDINANCES    OF    MOSAISM.  [§    38. 

(1)  Comp.  my  article  "  Jehovah"  in  Herzog's  Real- Ency Mop.  vi.  p.  455  ff.  [and 
the  addition  by  Delitzsch  in  Herzog,  2d  ed.  also  Schaff's  Herzog,  I.  1153  and  art. 
"  Jehovah"  in  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary,  by  W.  Aldis  Wright]. 

(2)  The  explanation  of  the  expression  S hem-ham'' ])lior ash  is  uncertain  (Luther 
wrote  a  book  on  this  designation).  Comp.  the  remarks  of  Munk  (on  i.  61),  in 
his  edition  of  the  More  Nebochim  of  Maimonidcs  {Le  guide  des  egares  par  Mose  hen 
Maimun,  Paris,  1856).  Munk  himself,  referring  to  the  use  of  B'liJ  by  Onkelos  and 
Aben  Esra  on  Lev.  xxiv.  11,  16,  decides  in  favor  of  the  explanation  :  le  nom  de 
Dieu  dlstinctement  prononce.  The  expression  is  generally  explained  :  nomen  ex- 
pUcitiwi,  that  is,  either  the  name  which  is  replaced  by  other  names  of  God  (s. 
Buxtorf,  Lex.  Chald.  p.  243o),  or  tlie  name  by  wliich  the  nature  of  God  is  dis- 
tinctly characterized.  Others  explain  :  nomen  separatum,  namely,  either  sc.  a 
cognitione  hominum,  or  what  is  Ijcst  =  the  incommunicable  name  of  God,  which 
(comp.  Maimonidcs,  /.c.)  instructs  us  concerning  God's  essence,  while  the  other 
names  express  attributes  which  God  has  in  common  with  others  [above  art.]. 

(3)  The  substitution  of  the  simple  Sh'wa  instead  of  Hhateph-Pathahh  is  prob- 
ably to  be  regarded  as  only  an  abbreviation  in  writing. 

(4)  The  connection  of  Lev.  xxiv.  16  is  :  one  had  blasphemed  (^yp)  the  holy 
name  of  God,  whereupon  Moses  receives  the  direction  :  "  Bring  the  blasphemer 
outside  the  camp,  and  the  whole  community  shall  stone  him.  But  thou  shalt  say 
to  the  sons  of  Israel,  Whosoever  curses  his  God  shall  bear  his  sin."  The  follow- 
ing words  in  ver.  16,  i">pv  illD  niri'  W\^  3pj\,  are  explained  by  the  Jewish  exege- 
sis :  "  He  who  7ia7?ies  the  name  niD'  shall  be  put  to  death. — Even  if  3pJ  (root- 
meaning,  to  bore,  to  prick)  might  be  taken  as  meaning  to  jjronounce — but  in  the 
passages.  Gen.  xxx.  28,  Num.  i.  17,  Isa.  Ixii.  2,  advanced  to  prove  this,  it  has 
rather  the  meaning,  to  characterize,  to  define — the  connection  with  vers.  11  and  15 
would  still  lead  us  to  understand  a  blaspheming  utterance.  But  probably  the 
word  is  to  be  taken  as  exactly  =  •35p,,  coinpt  Num.  xxiii.  8  \iihid.\—Ow  the  Rab- 
binical application  of  Ex.  iii.  15  to  the  prohibition,  see  the  above  article,  p.  455. 

(5)  Another  expedient  of  the  Jews  was  to  place  D?r'D  [the  name]  instead  of  the 
name  itself. 

(6)  According  to  Bottcher's  account,  in  his  Ausf.  Lehrhuch.  der  hehr.  Sprache,  i. 
p.  49,  the  first  trace  of  the  pronunciation  Jehovah  was  in  the  anti-Jewish  book 
Pugiofidei ;  but  he  who  gave  it  currency  w^as  Peter  Galatinus,  a  friend  of  Reuchlin 
{De  arcanis  cathol.  veritatis,,n.  10),  from  1518  on.     It  is  often  used  by  Luther. 

(7)  See  Hengstenberg  i.  p.  274  fl. — On  the  comparison  of  the  Latin  Jupiter, 
Jovis,  cited  in  favor  of  the  reading  Jehovah  (see  Fuller  in  Reland,  p.  448, 
Gataker,  ibid.  p.  494), — a  comparison  that  overlooks  the  more  complete  forms, 
Diespiter,  Diovis, — and  further  on  the  hypothesis  according  to  which  a  supposed 
Egyptian  name  of  God  formed  from  the  seven  vowels  i  e ;?  w  o  d  «,  is  said  to  be 
preserved  in  the  word  Jehovah,  see  likewise  Hengstenberg,  I.e.  p.  231  U. ;  Tholuck, 
Miscell.  Writings,  i.  p.  394  ff. 

(8)  The  name  mri'',  as  third  j^erson,  corresponds  to  H'n^  in  Ex.  iii.  11.  The  a 
sound  under  the  preformative  was  in  general,  probably,  the  older  form,  as  we 
still  see  in  the  Arabic. — The  noun  formation  from  the  imperfect  is  very  common 
in  the  Hebrew  in  appellatives  (s,  Delitzsch,  Jesurun,  p.  208  f.),  but  particularly 
in  proper  names  (comp.  ^PJ^^  ■'^I'r'-)  etc.).  The  names  thus  formed,  correspond- 
ing to  the  fundamental  meaning  of  the  imperfect,  characterize  a  person  by  a 
peculiarity  which  is  continually  manifested  in  him,  and  so  is  specially  character- 
istic [ibid.].  The  formation  is  perfectly  analogous  to  the  Latin  ending  tor,  which 
is  connected  with  ttirus. —DeWtzsch,  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Psalms  (1859  and 
1860),  reads  Jahawah,  but  he  has  now  given  up  this  view. 

(9)  [According  to  Baudissin,  "  The  divine  name 'law"  (Stvdien,  i.  p.  181  ff.), 
in  the  passage  cited  :  "  (nrb  6e  tuv  ''E[3paiKc)v  jfuupcjv  rbv  'lau'ia  reap'  'E(3palotc  bvofia^o- 
fuvov,''''  'law-' la  is  to  be  separated  and  the  rendering  to  be  given  :  "from  the  He- 
brew writings  (they  have,  viz.,  the  Ophites)  the  name  'Idu,  which  is  pronounced 
by  the  Hebrews  'I<i"  (p.  183  f.)]. 


§    39.]  SIGNIFICATION    OF   THE    NAME    JEHOVAH.  95 

(10)  [Comp.  Biiudissin.  According  to  him  the  word  'Idu  cannot  come  into  con- 
sideration in  the  decision  upon  the  correct  pronunciation  of  TT^rw  The  view  of 
Movers,  given  as  probaljle  in  the  first  edition  of  this  work,  that  these  forms  of 
pronunciation  are  in  imitation  of  the  mystical  name  of  Dionysos,  'lanxog,  for 
which  the  Semitic  name  was  pronounced  ^H",  is,  according  to  tlie  investigations  of 
Baudissin,  not  cori'ect,  since  whenever  'law  occurs,  it  may  be  referred  to  the 
tetragram  Hin'',  and  this,  so  far  as  our  present  knowledge  extends,  belongs  ex- 
clusively to  the  people  of  Israel.] 

§39. 

2.    TJie  Signification  oftlie  Name. 

The  name  signifies,  He  who  is,  according  to  Ex.  iii.  14  ;  more  particularly,  JTs 
who  is  what  He  is"{\).  But  as  it  is  not  the  idea  of  a  continuous  existence  which  lies 
in  the  verb  mn  or  ri'n,  but  that  of  existence  in  motion,  of  becoming  and  occurring 
(comp.  Delitzsch,  Genesis,  4th  ed.  p.  26),  so  also  the  form  of  the  name  as  derived 
from  the  imperfect  leads  us  to  understand  in  it  the  existence  of  God,  not  as  an 
existence  at  rest,  but  as  one  always  becoming,  always  making  itself  known  in  a 
process  of  becoming.  Hence  it  is  wrong  to  find  in  the  name  the  abstract  notion 
of  bvTuq  bv.  God  is  rather  Jahve  in  as  far  as  He  has  entered  into  an  historical  rcla- 
tio_n_to  mankind,  and  in  particular  to  the  chosen  people  Israel,  and  shows  Him- 
self continually  in  this  historical  relation  as  He  who  is,  and  who  is  what  He  is. 
While  heathenism  rests  almost  exclusively  on  the  past  revelations  of  its  divinities, 
this  name  testifies,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  relation  of  God  to  the  world  is  in 
a  state  of  continual  living  activity  ;  it  testifies,  especially  in  reference  to  the 
people  who  address  their  God  by  this  name,  that  they  have  in  their  God  a  future. 
But  more  particularly  the  name  Jehovah  (2)  expresses  two  ideas  : 

1.  Inasmuch  as  God  is  just  what  He  is,  and  so  determines  Himself  in  the  his- 
torical manifestation  of  His  existence,  instead  of  being  determined  by  anything 
outside  of  Him  (compare  Hofmann,  Schrifthcwcis,  i.  p.  81  f.),  the  name  carries 
us  into  the  sphere  of  the  divine  freedom  (3).  It  expresses  quite  generally  the 
absolute  independence  of  God  in  His  dominion.  Through  this  factor  of  its  mean- 
ing the  name  Jehovah  is  connected  with  El-shaddai. 

2.  When,  in  virtue  of  His  absolute  independence,  God  in  all  His  dominion  as- 
serts Himself  as  that  which  He  is,  the  name  further  conveys  the  idea  of  the  abso- 
lute immittahility  of  God,  in  virtue  whereof  He  in  all  things,  in  words  as  in 
deeds,  is  essentially  in  agreement  with  Himself,  and  remains  self-consistent  (4). 
Where  this  second  factor  is  put  in  special  relation  to  the  divine  decree  of  elec- 
tion, and  the  promises  that  flow  therefrom,  as  is  the  case  in  Ex.  iii.  13  flE.,  vi. 
2  if.,  the  name  implies  the  invariable  faithftdness  of  God,  which  side  of  tlie 
notion  of  Jehovah  (against  Hofmann,  I.e.)  is  specially  emphasized  in  the  Old 
Testament,  to  awake  confidence  on  God  ;  cf.  passages  like  Dcut.  vii.  9,  Hos. 
xii.  6,  in  connection  with  ver.  7,  Isa.  xxvi.  4  (5).  That,  as  Jehovah,  God  is  the 
immutable,  is  brought  out  in  Mai.  iii.  6  (6).  In  passages  like  Isa.  xli.  4,  xliv.  6, 
etc.,  the  name  is  applied  both  to  God's  absolute  independence  and  to  His  abso- 
lute immutability.  (7). 

(1)  [More  recently  the  explanation  of  the  name  from  the  JTiphil  of  llie  root 
mn  has   been   j.naintained   by  many.      mri''    would   then    be   the   gicer  of    exist- 


96  Tilt:    DOCTRINES    AND    ORDINANCES    OF   MOSAISM.  [§    40. 

ence  or  life.  So  P.  de  Lagarde  (in  several  of  his  writings,  and  most  recently  in 
his  Orientnlia,  Part  XL,  and  the  Ahhand.  d.  I".  Oes.  d.  W.  at  Gottingen,  1880),  ac- 
cording to  whom  the  imperfect  of  Hin  in  Kal  would  be  niH',  and  not  niH'. 
So  Schrader  (Art.  "  Jahve"  in  Schenkel's  Bibel  Lexicon),  with  whom  Baudissin 
agrees  (i.  p.  229);  Schultz  (p.  486  fi.),  is  undecided.  The  passage  Ex.  iii.  14 
presents  to  him  no  objection  against  the  Hiphil  derivation,  since  be  regards 
the  passage  as  giving  only  the  religious  meaning  attached  to  the  name  in  a  later 
age  ;  but  he  finds  the  linguistic  reasons  against  the  derivation  from  Kal  not  deci- 
sive. ] 

(3)  From  this  point  onward  I  use  the  word  Jehovah,  because,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  this  name  has  now  become  naturalized  in  our  vocabulary,  and  cannot  be 
supplanted,  any  more  than  it  would  be  possible  for  the  more  correct  Jarden  to 
displace  the  usual  form  Jordan. 

(3)  Only  that  the  name  cannot  be  interpreted  in  the  sense  of  absolute  nrli- 
trariness ;  as,  for  example,  Drechsler  {The  Unity  mid  Genuineness  of  Genesis, 
p.  11  f.)  has  expounded  the  passage  Ex.  iii.  14,  "I  am  He,  and  what  it  pleases 
me  to  be,"  and  "  I  always  reveal  myself  in  all  deeds  and  commands  as  what  I 
please,''''  according  to  which  the  name  is  t-upposed  to  express  the  "  free  grace" 
or  the  "  groundless  mercy"  of  God  (Drtchsler,  p.  10). 

(4)  Also  in  Ex.  xxxiii.  19,  which  has  correctly  been  adduced  to  explain  iii.  14, 
the  declaration,  "I  am  gracious  to  whom  I  am  gracious,"  affiims,  \st,  that  God 
shows  grace  to  him  to  whom  He  will  be  gracious,  and  to  no  other,  or  the  absolute 
freedom  of  God's  grace  ;  and,  2d,  that  He  really  shows  grace  to  him  to  whom  He 
is  gracious,  that  is,  He  is  self-consistent  in  showing  mercy,  in  reference  to  His 
grace  agreeing  with  Himself. 

(5)  Hos.  xii.  6  f.:  "  And  Jehovah,  the  God  of  hosts,  Jehovah  is  His  memorial 
name.  And  thou,  to  thy  God  shalt  thou  turn  again  ;  keep  godliness  and  right,  and 
wait  continually  on  thy  God."  Because  Israel  calls  his  God  mri'',  therefore 
should  he  turn  to  Him  trustfully.  Isa.  xxvi.  4  :  "  Trust  on  Jehovah  forever, 
for  in  Jah  Jehovah  is  an  everlasting  rock." 

(6)  Mai.  iii.  6  :  "I  am  Jehovah,  I  have  not  changed,  and  ye  sons  of  Jacob 
perish  not  ;"  that  is,  in  God's  rmchangcableness,  expiesscd  by  His  name  Jehovah, 
the  eternal  duration  of  His  covenant  people  is  pledged. — See  on  this  passage, 
Hengsten berg,  Christology. 

(7)  If  we  proceed  from  the  name  alone  without  regard  to  Ex.  iii.,  it  appears  at 
first  sight  that  only  absolute  being  lies  in  it.  Luther  in  particular  has  carried 
this  further  in  the  article  on  Shem-ham'phorash  (Erl.  ed.  of  his  German 
works,  xxxii.  p.  306).  He  explains  the  sense  of  the  name  thus  :  "  He  has  His 
being  from  none,  has  neither  beginning  nor  end,  but  is  from  eternity  in  and  of 
Himself,  so  that  His  being  cannot  be  called  heen  or  to  become,  for  He  has  never 
begun,  and  cannot  begin  to  be  ;  He  has  also  never  had  an  end,  nor  can  cease  to 
be  ;  but  with  Him  it  is  always  a  pure  is  or  ea-istence,  that  is,  Jehovah.  Wlien  the 
creature  was  created,  His  existence  was  already  there,  and  He  is  there  with  His 
being  for  all  that  shall  still  arise.  In  this  way  Christ  speaks  of  His  divinity  in 
John  viii.  TjB  :  Before  Abraham  was,  I  am.  He  does  not  say.  Then  I  was,  as  if 
after  that  He  had  been  no  more,  Imt  I  am,  that  is,  my  being  is  eternal,  it  has  not 
been,  will  not  be,  but  simply  is."  But  here  the  name  is  taken  up  too  abstractly  ; 
its  essential  signification  is  much  rather  in  reference  to  the  history  of  revelation. 
This  will  be  clearly  shown  in  the  comparison  with  Elohim. 

§40. 

3.  Age  and  Origin  of  tJie  Name  Jehovah, 

From  what  has  been  said  on  the  signification  of  the  name,  it  is  clear  that  it  is 
so  interwoven  with  the  Old  Testament  revelation,  that  its  origin  can  only  be 
sought  for  in  this  sphere  (1).     Every  attempt  to  derive  the  name  from  heathenism 


§    40.]  AGE    AND    ORIGIK    OF   THE    FAME    JEHOVAH.  97 

rfists_on  arbitrary  hj^pothcses  or  on  strange  misunderstandings  ;  as,  for  example, 
the  hypothesis  wJiieli  derives  tlie  name  from  a  pretended  Egyptian  name  of  God, 
formed  by  the  seven  Greek  vowels  l  e  r/uova,  although  these  letters  are  only  in- 
tended to  indicate  the  musical  scale.  Ex.  v.  2  (2)  speaks  decidedly  against  a 
derivation  from  Egypt.  That  Necho,  2  Kings  xxiii.  34,  changes  the  name  of 
the  conquered  Eliakim  to  Jehoiakim,  is  no  evidence  for  the  Egyptian  character 
of  the  name  Jehovah  ;  it  is  meant  to  indicate  that  the  Egyptian  king  acts  thus 
with  the  help  of  the  national  god  (so  Nebuchadnezzar,  2  Kings  xxiv.  17,  in  chang- 
ing Mattaniah's  name  to  Zedekiah,  gives  him  a  name  compounded  from  Jehovah. 
Rabshakeh's  speech,  Isa.  xxxvi.  10,  is  particularly  instructive).— But  the  more 
exact  determination  of  the  Old  Testament  origin  of  the  name,  depends  on  the 
explanation  of  the  passage  Ex.  vi.  3.  According  to  one  exposition,  the  meaning 
of  it  is,  that  the  name  Jehovah  was  entirely  unhnown  to  the  patriarchs,  and  that 
we  have  here  t\\Q  first  revelation  of  the  name  ;  compare  Josephus,  Ant.  ii.  12.  4  (3). 
In  that  case,  since  the  frequent  use  of  the  name  in  Genesis  certainly  cannot 
simply  be  referred  to  prolepsis,  there  would  be  a  double  account  of  the  origin 
of  the  name  in  the  Pentateuch.  According  to  the  first,  Gen.  iv.  26,  xii.  8,  etc.,  it 
would  reach  back  to  primeval  antiquity  ;  and  according  to  the  second,  it  was  first 
introduced  by  Moses  (4).  The  other  exposition  makes  Ex.  vi.  3  say  that  the  name 
Jehovah  had  not  teen  yet  understood  by  the  patriarclis,  and  that  they  had  not  the 
full  experience  of  that  which  lies  in  the  name  (4).  This  would  make  the  meaning 
of  the  passage  correspond  exactly  with  Ex.  iii.  15,  and  be  analogous  to  the  pas- 
sage Ex.  xxxiii.  19  ;  comp.  with  xxxiv.  6,  in  which  the  announcement  of  a  name 
of  God  has  simply  the  force  of  an  unveiling  to  human  knowledge  of  a  quality  of 
the  divine  nature,  without  our  being  able  to  say  that  that  name  did  not  exist  pre- 
viously. For  "P^IIJ  N^  mn'  "'pif?^,  compare  also  Ex.  viii.  18,  Ps.  Ixxvi.  2,  etc. 
On  account  of  the  connection  with  ver.  7,  the  first  explanation  must  in  any 
case  include  the  second  (5).  Against  the  first  explanation,  however,  we  have, 
\st.  The  occasional  occurrence  of  the  name  Jehovah  even  in  those  parts  of  Genesis 
which  belong  to  the  Elohistij;  record,  where  the  expedient  of  assuming  an  inter- 
polation is  altogether  worthless.  2d^  The  occurrence  of  the  name  in  the  name  of 
the  mother  of  Moses,  Jochebed  '^^pi''  (that  is,  citjus  gloria  est  Jehovah),  Ex.  vi.  20, 
— a  fact  which  has  led  even  Ewald  to  the  view  that  the  name  Jehovah  was  com- 
mon at  least  among  the  maternal  ancestors  of  Moses.  There  are  also  some  other 
names  from  that  ancient  time  which  occur  in  the  genealogies  in  Chronicles,  1 
Chron.  ii.  25,  vii.  8,  iv.  18  :  Ahijah,  Abiah,  Bithiali  (G).  ^  and  lastly,  it  is  most 
improbable  that  Moses,  when  he  had  to  bring  to  the  people  a  revelation  of  the 
God  of  their  fathers,  should  have  done  so  under  a  name  of  God  quite  unhioicn  to 
the  people.     Hence  the  assertion  of  the'pre-Mosaic  origin  of  the  name  is  right. 

(1)  Compare  the  remarks  in  Havernick's  Introductio7i  to  the  Pentateuch,  pp.  56-59. 

(2)  Ex.  v.  2,  Pharaoh  says  :  "  Who  is  Jehovah,  whose  voice  I  am  to  obey  to 
let  Israel  go?  I  know  not  Jehovah.'"  In  reference  to  all  the  hypotheses,  on 
which  I  cannot  enter,  which  seek  to  derive  the  name  from  Egypt,  Phojnicia,  or 
India,  the  dissertation  by  Tholuck  in  the  Literar.  Ameiger,  1832,  Nos.  27-30, 
and  reprinted  in  his  Vermischte  Schriften,  i.  1839,  p.  376  ff.,  still  deserves  to  be 
consulted.  [Comp.  especially  Baudissin  i.  p.  220  IT.,  but  also  the  addition  of 
Delitzsch  to  the  Art.  "  Jehovah"  in  the  2d  ed.  of  Herzog.  vi.  507  (Schaii's  Her- 
zog  i.  p.  1153),  who  is  more  inclined  than  Baudissin  to  agree  with  the  conjecture 


08  THE   DOCTRINES   AND    ORDINANCES   OF   MOSAlSM.  [§   41. 

of  Schrader,  that  the  name  Jahve  in  the  form  Jahu  is  of  pre-Israelitish,  Semitic 
origin.] 

(3)  Josephus  says,  I.e.  :  6  Qtbg  avrC)  cr/fiaivsi  ri/v  tavrov  Tvpoa?]yopiav,  ov  nporepov  elf. 
avdpuTTovg  TrapsAOovaav'  wepl  ijq  ov  jioi  defiirbv  eiTTelv. 

(4)  See  specially  Kurtz,  Hist,  of  the  Old  Covenant,  i.  2d  ed.  p.  345  f.,  comp. 
with  ii.  p.  07. 

(5)  Schultz,  in  his  Old  Testament  Theology  (p.  489),  wonders  that  I  also  am 
here  found  on  the  side  of  the  expositors  who  twist  the  meaning,  which  shows 
that  he  has  not  properly  appreciated  my  reasons.  The  passage  Ex.  vi.  2  if.  runs 
thus  :  "  Elohim  spoke  to  Moses,  and  said  :  I  am  TYTV  ;  I  appeared  to  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob  as  El-shaddai,  but  by  my  mrT'  name  Dri7  "'rijj'lij  ^  .  .  .  I  have 
heard  the  sighs  of  the  sons  of  Israel  .  .  .  Therefore  say  to  the  sons  of  Israel  : 
I  am  TWT[\  and  will  lead  you  out  from  under  the  burdens  of  Egypt  ...  So  I 
am  God  to  you,  and  ye  acknowledge  that  I,  nin"',  am  your  God."'  It  is  quite  clear 
that  the  DJ3\;;T1.  in  vcr.  7  refers  back  to  the  Urfl  'rii;nij  in  ver.  3  ;  but  this  U^Vy\ 
of  course,  does  not  mean  :  then  shall  my  title  Jehovah  become  known  to  you, 
but  :  then  acknowledge  ye  what  is  in  my  nature.  [Schultz  in  his  second  edition 
is  very  much  inclined  to  assume  that  the  name  was  not  invented  by  Moses,  but 
was  found  by  him  already  in  existence  ;  the  ])assage  in  question  does  not  embar- 
rass him  in  his  explanation,  because  he  sees  in  it  only  the  writer's  view  with  no 
historical  value.  His  main  objection  against  the  explanation  of  the  author  of  the 
present  work  is  as  follows  :  It  is  a  fair  question,  what  is  meant  by  the  expres- 
sion, "  a  name  is  known  without  its  signification" — since  the  revelation  of  a 
name  of  God  means  neither  more  nor  less  than  that  a  new  side  of  tlic  Divine  Being 
reveals  itself.  But  this  objection  does  not  meet  at  all  the  view  presented  in  the 
text  above,  but  only  a  misconception  of  it.  For  what  is  maintained  is,  not 
that  they  had  the  name,  but  did  not  understand  its  verbal  signification — but  that 
they  did  not  have  the  full  experience  of  what  this  name  in  virtue  of  its  verbal 
signification  (which  they  could  understand)  means.  Just  the  side  of  the  Divine 
Being,  which,  according  to  §  39,  2,  is  contained  as  the  second  factor  in  the  word 
Jehovah,  was  actually  revealed  in  the  redemption  of  Israel,  and  thus  God  pre- 
sented Himself  as  to  be  known  by  the  people  of  Israel  on  that  side  of  His  nature 
which  the  name  Jehovah  exjoresses]. 

(6)  [Schultz,  in  accordance  with  his  critical  views  of  the  Elohistic  part  of  the 
Pentateuch,  A,  and  the  book  of  Chronicles,  is  prevented  from  attaching  any  im- 
portance to  these  names  as  evidence  (see  p.  490.)] 

§41. 

Comparison  of  the  Name  Jehovah  with  Elohim  and  El. 

If  we  compare  God's  names  DTi^t?  and  7K  with  niH],  in  reference  to  their  mean- 
ing, the  following  difference  is  found  to  result  from  the  definitions  already  given 
(1).  In  general,  all  universally  cogmical  action  of  God,  going  out  toward  the 
heathen  as  well  as  toward  Israel  in  the  creation  and  preservation  of  the  world,  is 
traced  to  El  and  Elohim ;  to  Jehovah,  on  the  other  hand,  is  traced  every  divine 
act  which  is  connected  with  the  thgocratic  revelation  and  guidance,  and  which 
bears  on  the  heathen  only  in  as  far  as  their  history  stands  in  relation  to  the 
aim  of  the  divine  kingdom.  It  follows  from  this,  that  the  h K<t^w/cgj_ display 
of  the  divine  essence  lies  essentially  in  the  idea  of  Jehovah  ;  whereas,  on  the 
contrary,  Elohim,  as  such,  is  subject  to  no  historical  process.  By  this.  Oetinger's 
explanation,  "  Deus  est  omnium  rerum  Elohim  omnium,  actionum  Jehovah,"  is  to 
be   more    exactly    defined  (2),     Elohim,  as  such,    remains   transcendent  to  the 


§    41.]        COMPARiSON^    or*    NAME    .TEHOVAII    with    ELOHIM    AKJ)    EL.         00 

■woi'ld  of  phenomena  ;  Jehovah,  on  the  contairy,  enters  into  the  j)lienomena  of 
space  and  time,  in  order  to  manifest  Himself  to  mankind  ;  a  dilfcrence  which  ap- 
pears at  once  in  tlie  relation  of  Gen.  i.  1  sqq.  to  ii.  4  sqq.  This  difference 
indeed,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  is  not  strictly  l^ejit  up  everywhere  in  the 
Old  Testament  in  the  use  of  the  names  of  God.  Since  Elohim  is  only  known  in 
Israel  as  Jehovah,  what  is  Elohistic  is  often  traced  back  to  Jehovah  ;  less  often 
Elohim  stands  where  we  might  expect  Jehovah,  particularly  in  the  Elohistic 
psalms,  the  peculiarity  of  which  in  the  pregnant  ceremonious  use  of  Elohim  is 
probably  to  be  explained  by  the  theory  that  they  were  designed  to  counteract 
liturgically  a  merely  national  conception  of  the  Deity  (3).  But  still  it  is  shown 
partly  by  certain  general  ways  of  expression  which  run  through  the  whole  Old 
Testament,  and  partly  by  separate  passages,  that  the  Old  Testament  writers  had 
a  very  definite  consciousness  of  the  indicated  difierence.  In  reference  to  the  first 
head,  we  must  remember  that  all  expressions  ipTiich  refer  to  revelation  occur  almost 
entirely  in  connection  ^vith  H^H'  ;  thus,  with  quite  rare  exceptions,  HiH'  1!3^,  D^?J, 
ni^p,  "ipX  n3,  etc.,  and  further,  because  God  is  acknowledged  and  addressed 
in  Israel  only  as  Jehovah,  wath  Dli',  also,  with  the  exception  only  of  two  passages 
in  Elohistic  psalms,  Ps.  Ixix.  31,  Ixxv.  8  ;  even  the  jDreponderatingly  Elohistic 
section,  2  Sam.  vi.,  places  in  ver.  3  Hin^  DK^.  Where  no  definite  reason  exists 
for  writing  D'>?^*f  'Wl'^i  the  Malakh  is  always  the  angel  of  Jehovah.  TheopTiany 
in  general  is  predicated  of  Jehovah,  who,  and  not  Elohim,  holds  inter- 
course with  man  in  the  manner  of  men.  The  change  of  names  in  Gen.  vii.  16  is 
specially  noteworthy  (4).  Hence  it  comes  that  anthropomorphisms  are  almost 
always  applied  to  Jehovah,  not  to  Elohim.  Thus  niTT^  T  even  in  the  Elohistic 
Psalm  Ixxv.  ver.  8  (5)  ;  thus  always  Hiri]  'S,  never  D'ri^^  '3  ;  so  quite  often 
nin|  "'rj?,  vip,  only  twice  DTi/?*  "^J^,  yip,  etc.  Of  leading  individual  passages 
to  be  particularly  mentioned  are  Gen.  ix.  26  f.,  according  to  which  God  is  for 
Japheth  mainly  only  Elohim  ;  on  the  contrary,  for  Shem  He  is  Jehovah  ;  Num. 
xvi.  22,  compared  with  xxvii.  16  ;  in  the  first  passage  (the  story  of  Korah's  com- 
pany), although  Jehovah  is  predominant  through  the  whole  section,  7t<  is  called 
upon  as  God  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh,  as  He  from  whom  all  natural  life  proceeds, 
and  who  as  preserver  of  the  world  is  entreated  not  to  sweep  away  a  multitude 
of  men  because  of  one  man  who  sinned.  In  the  second  passage,  on  the  contrary 
(where  the  appointment  of  a  successor  to  Moses  is  treated  of),  Jehovah  is  addressed 
as  God  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh,  who  divides  the  gifts  of  His  Spirit  for  the  ser- 
vice of  His  kingdom,  and  is  therefore  entreated  to  appoint  and  equip  a  new 
leader  of  His  people.  With  this  compare  Ps.  xix.,  where,  in  reference  to  the 
manifestation  of  God  in  nature,  ver.  1,  El  is  used  ;  while  in  reference  to  the  revela- 
tion in  the  law,  Jehovah  stands  from  ver.  7  onward,  etc.  (6). 

(1)  Here,  of  course,  those  passages  are  meant  where  the  expressions  C*?^^  and 
/*?  stand  by  themselves,  without  an  article,  adjective,  or  a  dependent  genitive 
(as,  God  of  Jacob). 

(2)  In  a  certain  sense  we  may  say,  with  Delitzsch,  Jehovah  is  a  God  who 
"  becomes"  [yiyveTai].  But  the  expression  is  liable  to  be  misunderstood  ; 
Hengstenberg  rightly  reminds  us,  on  the  other  hand,  that  "  God  comes  indeed, 
but  He  does  not  lecome.'''' 

(3)  It  is  well  known  that  thejirst  Psalm  looh  [Ps.   i.-xli.]    is  Jehovistic,   the 


loo  THE   DOCTRINES   ANi)   ORDINANCES   OF   MOSAISM.  [§   42. 

second,  Elohislic  [Ps.  xlii.-lxxii.J.  Tlie  assumption  of  Hitzig  and  others,  that  the 
dread  which  appears  at  a  later  period  of  using  the  name  Jehovah  is  manifest  in 
the  Eluhistic  psalms,  is  utterly  untenable,  not  simply  because  among  these 
Elohistic  songs  there  are  without  doubt  pieces  of  an  earlier  age,  but  also  because 
they  do  not  absolutely  exclude  the  name  Jehovah. 

(4)  Gen.  vii.  16  :  "  And  those  that  went  in,  went  in  male  and  female  of  all  flesh 
(into  tlie  ark  to  Noah),  as  Elohim  had  commanded  ;  and  Jehovah  shut  the  door 
behind  him."  [He  who  gives  command  is  styled  Elohim,  he  who  ^uav-dpunuq 
condescends,  Jehovah.] 

(5)  D'n^^  T  occurs  only  in  a  few  places,  where  definite  reasons  exist. 

(6)  [This  distinction  would  be  incorrect,  if  the  view  of  Wuim,  Theol.  Studien 
mis  Wilrttemiicrg,  ii.  p.  173  ff.,  were  light,  that  Elohim  is  a  superior  being,  who 
reveals  himself  to  man.  His  argument  is  that  the  one  who  receives  revelations  is 
called  "  a  man  of  God,''''  not  "  a  man  of  Jehovah.''''  But  even  if  no  weight  should 
be  attached  to  the  fact  that  in  the  passages  cited  by  Wurm  it  is  not,  except  in 
1  Sam.  ix.  6  and  1  K.  xvii.  24,  D^ri'?!??  ti^'N  but  CriSsn  (since  the  article  may  be 
explained  as  referring  not  to  a  but  the  man  of  God),  no  considerable  impor- 
tance can  be  given  to  this  one  form  of  expression  in  opposition  to  the  passages 
cited  in  the  text  above.  It  is  remarkable  that  in  1  K.  xvii.  24  after  the  words, 
"  I  know  that  thou  art  a  man  of  God,"  there  follows,  "  and  that  the  word  of 
Jehovah  is  truth  in  thy  mouth."  Is  not  the  explanation  of  the  use  of  ^'O'^ 
in  connection  with  ti^'N,  that  this  expression  denotes  the  special  relation  of  a 
man  to  the  Deity  in  general  and  not  to  the  covenant  God  of  Israel  ?  When  one 
is  called  a  "man  of  God,"  it  is  thereby  only  specified  that  there  has  been 
vouchsafed  to  him  a  close  relation  to  the  Deity,  but  not  to  the  Deity  who  has 
entered  into  a  historical  relation  to  Israel.] 


§42. 

Attributes  or  Names  of  Ood  which  are  derived  immediately  frorn  the  idea  of  Jehmah. 

From  the  idea  of  Jehovah  flow  the  following  further  properties  of  the  Divine 
Being  : 

1,  Jehovah  is  an  eternal  God,  u^'^V  '*^,  as  Abraham  addresses  Him  in  Gen.  xxi. 
33  ;  comp.  Deut.  xxxii.  40,  where  Jehovah  is  introduced  as  Himself  saying,  "  I 
live  to  eternity."  God's  eternity  is  involved  in  His  absolute  independence,  iu 
virtue  whereof  God  is  not  conditioned  by  anything  which  originates  or  decays  in 
time,  but  is  the  first  and  the  last  (Isa.  xliv.  6,  xlviii.  12).  The  longest  human 
measurement  of  time  vanishes  when  put  against  His  eternal  duration,  Ps.  xc.  4. 
Still  it  is  not  this  abstract  conception  of  eternity  as  an  everlasting  duration  of 
time  which  the  Old  Testament  chiefly  brings  forward  ;  but  while  God  as  ri'lH'  is  the 
eternal,  God's  eternity  is  defined  as  the  unchangeahleness  of  His  ieing,  continuing 
throughout  every  change  of  time,  and  thus  it  becomes  the  basis  of  human  confi- 
dence. Therefore  Moses,  in  the  midst  of  the  dying  away  of  his  people,  addresses 
God  as  the  Eternal  One,  Ps.  xc.  1  f.  (1)  ;  therefore,  Deut.  xxxii.  40,  the  idea 
that  God  is  eternal  forms  the  transition  to  the  announcement  that  He  will  again 
save  His  rejected  people  ;  therefore  Israel,  when  sighing  in  misery,  is  comforted, 
Isa.  xl.  28  :  "  Knowest  thou  not,  and  hast  thou  not  heard,  that  Jehovah  is  an 
eternal  God  ?"     Compare  also  Ps.  cii.  28. 

2.  It  is  involved  in  the  idea  of  Jehovah  that  He  is  a  liv'mg  God  :  Gen.  xvi.  14 
(according  to  the  probable  explanation  of  the  passage),  Deut.  v.  23  (26),  DTivK 


§    42.]  AMRIBUTES   OR   KAMES   OF   GOD.  101 

C'n  :  Josh.  iii.  10,  'niX.  He  swears  by  His  life,  Num.  xiv.  21,  28,  compare 
Deut.  xxxii.  40.  In  the  following  books  the  expression  is  much  more  common  ; 
and  here  the  form  of  oath,  which  does  not  occur  in  the  Pentateuch,  HlH'  'n,  as 
true  as  Jehoxah  lives,  appears  often,  never  D'H^^  '0.  The  latter  circumstance  is 
sufficient  to  indicate  that  God  is  not  called  the  living  God  in  the  sense  of  His 
bearing  within  Him  the  powders  of  physical  life,  although  in  every  respect  the 
words  in  Ps.  xxxvi.  9,  "with  Thee  is  the  fountain  of  life,"  are  applicable  to 
Him  ;  but  He  is  called  the  Living  One,  as  the  God  of  revelation,  in  as  far  as  He 
comes  in  historical  attestations  into  connection  with  mankind,  and  causes  Him- 
self to  be  known  to  men  by  the  operations  of  His  power.  His  first  aj^pearance  as 
the  God  who,  ruling  in  free  activity,  causes  nature  to  serve  His  aims,  and  is  there- 
fore called  the  living  God,  is  to  the  forsaken  Hagar,  Gen.  xvi.  13  f.  (according  to 
the  most  probable  explanation)  :  "  She  called  the  name  of  Jehovah  who  spoke 
to  her.  Thou  art  a  God  of  seeing,"  that  is,  who  sees  (whose  care  does  not  even 
overlook  a  rejected  helpless  one  in  the  desert)  ;  for  she  said,  "  Have  I  then  here 
looked  after  God,  who  sees  me  ?  Therefore  the  name  of  the  well  (where  Hagar 
had  this  manifestation)  is  the  well  of  the  Living  One,  who  seeth  me"  (1),  Jeho- 
vah's speech  from  out  of  the  fire  on  Sinai  is  called  the  voice  of  the  living  God, 
Deut.  V.  23  ;  He  is  acknowledged  as  the  living  God  in  the  midst  of  the  congre- 
gation by  His  deeds  of  revelation,  Josh.  iii.  10,  and  by  His  words  of  revelation, 
Jer.  xxiii.  36.  As  a  living  God,  He  also  enters  with  man  into  a  relation  of  fel- 
lowship which  is  experienced  by  him  inwardly,  especially  as  a  God  who  hears 
prayer,  and  hence  the  longing  of  the  godly  for  the  living  God  (Ps.  xlii.  8, 
Ixxxiv.  3).  As  the  Living  One,  Jehovah  is  contrasted  with  the  gods  of  the 
heathen,  which  can  reveal  nothing,  perform  nothing,  grant  no  requests,  and  send 
no  help,  Deut.  xxxii.  37-39  ;  which  are  nothings,  D'T/^,  Lev.  xix.  4,  xxvi.  1, 
etc.  ;  and  dead,  D'.n?,  Ps.  cvi.  28  (2).  Hence  the  idea  of  the  living  God  is 
specially  carried  out  in  what  the  prophets  and  the  psalms  say  against  the 
heathen  ;  for  example,  Jer.  x.  10  ff.,  comp.  1  Sam.  xvii.  36,  Isa.  xxxvii.  4,  17, 
etc.  Terror  for  those  of  guilty  conscience,  and  comfort  for  those  seeking  help, 
both  lie  in  the  idea  of  the  divine  vitality,  and  hence  in  Israel  there  is  no  higher 
oath  than  the  declaration,  Jehovah  lives  iJ^Y^]  'H). 

3.  Jehovah  is  the  Lord,  i''"'^;}  ;  my  Lord,  'J'^^.  That  the  idea  of  'J^*'  is  im- 
mediately connected  with,  the  idea  of  Jehovah  is  clear  from  the  fact  that  the 
two  names  are  frequently  associated,  and  that  "'J'li*  could  in  later  times  be  substi- 
tuted in  reading  for  XWXV.  The  word  "J^><  is  the  plural  of  j'^"'^,  which  is  de- 
rived from  |n,  to  direct,  to  rule.  The  plural  is  to  be  explained  as  in  C?^^  (§  36)  ; 
but  the  ending  '—  is  not  (as  many  have  assumed)  a  plural  ending,  for  the  exist- 
ence of  such  a  termination  is  more  than  doubtful,  but  it  is  the  suffix  of  the  first 
person,  which  is  pointed  with  Kametz  to  distinguish  God's  name  from  the  com- 
mon use  of  ^y^^  {—  my  lords,  comp.  e.g.  Gen.  xix.  2)  (3).  In  the  Pentateuch 
and  the  book  of  Joshua,  in  which  "'HX  only  occurs  in  addressing  God,  the  sulfix 
still  has  its  meaning  ;  compare  such  passages  as  Gen.  xv.  2,  8,  xviii.  3,  27,  30  ff., 
in  Jehovistic  context,  and  in  Elohistic  context.  Gen.  xx.  4  (in  the  mouth  of 
Abimelech)  ;  and  further,  passages  like  Ex.  xxxiv.  9,  Num.  xiv.  17,  Deut.  iii.  24, 
ix.  26  ;  especially  'p^f  is  connected  with  the  particle  of  request  'S,  Ex.  iv,  10, 


102  THE    DOCTIilNES    AND    ORDINANCES    OF    MOSAISM.  [§    43. 

];j,  Josh.  vii.  8,  in  addresses  of  supplication.  In  the  Pentateuch  and  the  book  of 
Joshua,  wliere  Jehovah  is  not  directly  addressed  as  the  Lord,  we  find  not  "J"^**, 
but  |n«n,  Ex.  xxxiv.  23,  or  n^n^r\  'J-lX,  Cent.  x.  17,  or  T";.^n-b3  |ni<,  Josh.'  iii. 
13.  Later,  however,  the  meaning  of  the  sufhx  became  blunted,  so  that  the  ex- 
pression is  frequently  found  even  when  God  is  spoken  of  in  the  third  person.  But 
when  God  Himself  speaks,  lie  never  makes  use  of  the  Avord  ;  the  passages  Job 
xxviii.  28,  Isa.  viii.  7,  form  only  an  apparent  excejition  (4).  According  to  the 
original  meaning  of  the  expression  ("  my  Lord  "),  there  lies  in  it,  as  shown  by 
the  above-cited  passages,  not  simply  the  acknowledgment  of  the  divine  sover- 
eignty in  general,  but  in  particular  the  consciousness  of  specially  belonging  to 
God,  as  is  the  case  with  the  organs  of  revelation  among  the  covenant  people,  the 
consciousness  of  standing  under  His  immediate  guidance  and  protection.  Thus 
far  it  was  quite  wrong  to  stamp  the  Old  Testament  religion  as  a  religion  of  fear 
on  account  of  the  frequent  use  of  "Lord,"  since  'J"l^  is  more  the  expression  of 
trust  in  its  original  meaning.  On  the  contrary,  the  idea  of  the  powerful  Ruler 
over  all  lies  in  the  later  use  of  the  expression,  after  the  sense  of  the  suffix  had 
ceased  to  be  felt,  Isa.  viii.  7,  xl.  10,  etc.  (5). 

(1)  Thus  Delitzsch  (among  others)  explains  the  difficult  passage  Gen  xvi.  13  f. 
Side  by  side  with  this  explanation  there  is  another,  according  to  which  our. pas- 
sage would  not  belong  to  this  topic.  Keil  reads  '><T  as  the  pausal-form  of  'H^  in- 
stead of  "i^'i,  and  translates,  "  Have  I  here  also  seen  after  this  seeing?  Therefore 
the  well  was  called  the  Well  of  the  Living-seeing"  (as  a  compound  noun)  ;  that  is, 
the  well  where  a  man  remains  in  life  when  he  sees  God.  Hagar  was  astonished 
that  she  still  saw  after  having  seen  the  '^^7'^  o^  God  ;  that  is,  that  she  still  re- 
mained in  life,  since  it  was  impossible  to  remain  alive  after  having  had  a  mani- 
festation of  God.  Against  the  first  explanation,  Keil  says  that  it  would  require 
■'Ji*'^  ;  but  in  Job  vii.  8  'HT  similarly  stands. 

(2)  The  word  ^'^X  means  "nothing,"  from  b'7X  ;  but  it  is  manifest  that  by 
this  word,  a  sort  of  diminutive  of    '^,  little  God,  was  also  intended. 

(3)  It  is  jieculiar  that,  when  'J^H  is  the  name  of  God,  it  stands  with  prefixes 

"jnx'?,  'pi^l;  otherwise  the  N  is  pointed,  e.g.  IJJ^^/-- 

(4)  Job  xxviii.  28  should  be  read,  according  to  most  manuscripts  and  the  oldest 
editions,  Hin;  ;  in  Isa.  viii.  7  a  change  of  subject  must  be  presumed,  with  a  tran- 
sition to  the  prophet  as  speaker.  Amos  vi.  8  does  not  belong  to  this  head  at 
all. 

(5)  The  word  'jnx  occurs  134  times  in  the  text.— 'P*?  has  been  compared  with 
the  Phoenician  Adonis,  against  which  it  is  enough  to  remark  that  the  two  have 
nothing  in  common  except  the  name. 

§43. 

The  Unity  of  God. 

Jehovah  is  one.  Although  the  multiplicity  of  divine  powers  broken  up  in  poly- 
theism is  summed  up  into  unity  in  Elohim,  yet  it  is  as  Jehovah  that  God  is  first 
fully  recognized  as  one  ;  and  thus  monotheism  forms  one  of  the  fundamental  doc- 
trines of  Mosaism.  Hence  Ex.  xx.  3,  "  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  beside 
me"  CJ3-S;;,  above  me,  or  in  addition  to  me),  is  placed  foremost  in  the  decalogue. 
Nevertheless,  the  thorough-going  monotheism  of  the  Pentateuch  has  often  been 


§    43.]  THE    UiYiTY    or    GOD.  l03 

denied  ;  and  it  lias  been  maintained,  either,  \fit,  that  the  unity  of  God  7Das  de- 
veloj^ed  gradually  from  a  iwlytheistic  religion,  or,  2(/,  that  the  Mosaic  Jehovah  does  not 
exclude  the  existence  of  other  gods.  Let  i;s  more  closely  examine  these  two 
views  (1). 

J^  Passages  like  Gen.  i.  20,  xi.  7  (where  Jehovah  says,  "  TF^will  go  down  and 
confound  their  language"),  also  iii.  22,  are  cited  in  support  of  the  first  view. 
But  even  if  we  (comj).  §  3G)  refuse  to  admit  in  the  two  first-named  passages  the 
conception  of  the  plural  as  the  plural  of  majesty — though  this  view  is  quite  ad- 
missible— the  ])lural  would  in  no  case  be  referable  to  other  gods,  but  at  most  to 
higher  spiritual  beings,  as  Uie_angels  ;  so  that  on  xi.  7,  we  should  compare  Isa. 
vi.  8  in  reference  to  the  expression,  and  in  reference  to  the  matter  Zech.  xiv.  5 
(2).  In  regard  to  the  ^Ai/'cZ  passage,  in  which  Jehovah  says,  "  Man  is  become 
^J^p  "^rii^^,  like  one  of  us"  (and  where  the  plural  is  certainly  not  to  be  under- 
stood as  a  plural  of  majesty,  as  Keil  still  understands  it),  the  words  convey  the 
meaning,  Man  has  become  like  a  being  o/"  my  species  ;  and  thus  the  expression  does 
not  suppose  other  gods,  but  only  the  existence  of  a  plurality_of_S£iritual^^ 
But  in  general,  the  following  is  to  be  noted  in  ojiposition  to  the  vieju"  just  indi- 
cated :  If  the  Mosaic  monotheism  was  the  result  of  such  a  developing  process, 
this  process  must  certainly  be  relegated  to  a  i:)eriod  jjriGr  to  the  composition  of 
the  Old  Testament.  Tlie  whole  exhibition  of  the  Divine  Being  in  Gen.  i.-x.  as- 
sumes most  distinctly  the  universality  of  the  idea  of  God  ;  and  even  after  revela- 
tion has  restricted  itself  to  one  race,  the  divine  training  aims  continually  at  awak- 
ing the  consciousness  of  this  universality  ;  conip.  the  instructive  passage  Gen. 
xxviii.  15  f.  (3).  But  if.  the  Old  Testament  monotheism  was  developed  from 
polytheism,  the  other  gods  from  the  midst  of  whom  Jehovah  had  raised  Himself 
as  the  highest  God,  must  still  have  existed  somehow  in  the  mind  ;  perhaps  de- 
graded to  the  level  of  angels,  but  still  regarded  as  beings  endued  with  a  certain 
independence  of  action.  But,  as  we  shall  see,  the  angelology  of  the_01d  Testa- 
ment follows  the  contrary  course  ;  it  is  only  at^ii&.j:lose  that  angels  endowed 
with  definite  personal  attributes  appear.  In  heathen  religions  the  tendency  to 
monotheism  appears  not  merely  in  the  superiority  of  a  supreme  God  to  the  other 
gods,  but  also  in  the  attempt  to  find  a  unity  in  an  ahstract  power  standing  over 
the  world  of  gods — as,  for  example,  in  the  Indian  Brahma  conceived  as  a  neuter, 
and  in  the  ovtuq  bv  of  the  later  Greek  theology,  e.g.  in  Plutarch.  But  an  idea 
like  that  of  Jehovah  is  nowhere  developed  from  the  polytheistic  process,  and 
nowhere  are  the  many  gods  condensed  into  one  Being  (4). 

^  If,  by  the  assertion  that  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament  does  not  exclude 
the  existence  of  other  gods,  it  is  only  meant  that  many  of  the  Js7'aelites  regarded 
Jehovah  only  as  a  God  beside  other  gods  of  the  people,  this  cannot  be  disputed. 
In  Jephthah's  words  indeed,  Judg.  xi.  24  (5),  which  are  specially  cited  as  evi- 
dence to  the  point,  it  is  a  question  whether  his  argument  does  not  proceed  on 
Moabite  ideas,  without  admitting  their  correctness  ;  still  it  is  historically  certain 
that  even  a  Solomon  at  a  later  time  could  waver  on  this  point.  It  is  clear,  how- 
ever, that  this  view  is  always  combated  by  the  organs  of  revelation  as  a  perver- 
sion of  the  idea  of  Jehovah. — In  reference  to  the  sepatmte  passages  to  which  the 
assertion  appeals,  Ex.  xviii.  11,  "Jehovah  is  greater  than  all  gods,"  does  not 
come  into  consideration,  being  the  word  of  a  heathen  (Jethro).     But  when  it 


104  THE    DOCTRINES    AND    ORDINANCES    OF    MOSAISM.  [§    43. 

is  said,  xx.  3,  "  Thoii  sliiilt  have  no  otlicr  gods  beside  me  ;"  xii.  12,  ''  I  will  ex- 
ecute judgments  on  all  the  gods  of  Egypt,  I  am  Jehovah  ;"  xv.  11,  "  Who 
among  the  gods  is  like  Thee,  Jehovah  ?"  these  passages  are  to  be  explained  by 
referring  to  others  in  the  same  book  ;  such  as  ix.  29,  "  the  earth  is  Jehovah's  ;" 
further,  xx.  11,  xxxi.  17,  "in  six  days  Jehovah  made  the  heaven  and  the  earth," 
etc. — passages  which  most  decidedly  exclude  the  opinion  that  other  gods  rule 
side  by  side  with  Jehovah  within  the  boundaries  of  their  own  people  and  land. 
How  little  the  expression  D'l.nx  Q'H '?fi  (other  gods)  is  to  be  taken  in  the  sense  in 
which  the  heathen  speak  of  Dli  7wvi,  advcncE,  j)eregrini,  is  shown  by  the  frequent 
occurrence  of  this  expression  in  the  prophets,  whose  strict  monotheism  is  certain- 
ly beyond  all  doubt  ;  e.g.  comp.  Isa.  xix.  1  with  Ex.  xii.  12.  The  passages 
in  Deuteronomy  to  which  api^eal  is  made,  prove  no  more  than  those  just 
cited  from  Exodus.  If  it  is  said,  chap,  xxxii.  12,  "  Jehovah  led  Israel  alone, 
no  strange  god  was  with  Him,"  the  strange  gods  are  called,  ver.  21,  /i<~S<  /  and 
□"/Iin — hreaths,  nothings  (which  correspond  fully  with  D'T/^,  Lev.  xix.  4,  and 
^nh,  1  Sam.  xi.  21).  Compare  Ps.  xcvi.,  where  it  is  said,  ver.  4,  "  Jehovah  is 
fearful  above  all  gods,"  but  in  ver.  5  is  immediately  added,  "  for  all  the  gods 
of  the  people  are  nothings."  Hence  we  gather  the  meaning  of  Deut.  xxxii.  39  : 
"  See  ye  now  that  I  am  He,  and  there  is  no  god  with  me  ;  I  kill  and  give  life." 
Further,  if  we  take  into  view  x.  14,  "  Behold  the  heaven  and  the  heaven  of 
heavens,  the  earth  and  all  that  is  upon  it,  are  Jehovah  thy  God's"— there  can  be 
no  doubt  that  the  dicta 2^rolantia  so  called  must  be  understood  as  afBiming  the 
unity  of  God  in  the  strictest  sense.  These  are  :  chap.  iv.  85,  "  Jehovah  is  the 
God  (D'Tlbfr^n),  and  none  but  He;"  again  in  ver.  39,  "Jehovah  is  God  in  the 
heavens  above,  and  in  the  earth  beneath  ;  there  is  none  but  He  •,"  and  lastly  the 
passage,  vi.  4  :  nn{<  Hin;  ?rrlbx  nin;  b^y^:  yW.  [A.  v.  Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord 
our  God  is  one  Lord.]  This  cannot  mean  (as  many  have  explained  it),  "  Jehovah 
is  our  God,  Jehovah  alone,"  that  is,  Israel  has  only  Jehovah  for  his  God;  for 
in  that  case  we  must  have  had  HD?  instead  of  10?-  There  are  only  two  admis- 
sible explanations  :  either,  "  Hear,  O  Israel,  Jehovah  our  God,  Jehovah  is  one" 
(inK  as  predicate  to  the  second  Jehovah);  or  "inx  njn'  is  predicate  to  ^JTlT^  ^]^], 
"Jehovah  our  God  is  One  (a  single)  Jehovah."  On  the  latter  explanation  the 
meaning  is  not  (as  Schultz  has  conceived  in  his  Commentary  on  Deuteronomy)  : 
Our  God  has  not  sometimes  this  and  sometimes  that  manner  of  manifestation, 
but  only  one  single  one,  viz.,  as  Jehovah  (which  introduces  an  entirely  foreign 
thought  into  the  passage)  ;  this  second  construction  would  he  better  explained, 
with  Keil  :  Jehovah  our  God  is  the  single  absolutely  indei^endent  and  abiding 
one,  and  therefore  He  to  whom  alone  divine  reality  belongs.  Still  the  first  ex- 
planation seems  to  me  to  be  the  more  correct.  For  the  demand,  ver.  5,  to  dedi- 
cate to  Him  the  whole  heart  and  undivided  love,  and,  ver.  14,  not  to  go  after 
heathen  gods  (6),  is  thus  based  on  the  fact  that  Jehovah  is  absolutely  one.  In 
the  later  books,  comp.  in  the  way  of  illustration  such  passages  especially  as  Isa. 
xliii.  10,  xliv.  G,  xlv.  5,  xlv.  18,  etc. 

Apotl^ier  question  is,  whether  the  gods  of  the  heathen  did  not  exist  according 
to  the  Old  Testament,  if  not  as  gods,  at  least  as  living  leings,  perhaps  as 
demons.     But  for  this  also  there  is  no  evidence  ;  for  the  expression  D"l"^,  Deut. 


§    44.]  FORMAL    DEFINITION    OF    GOD    AS   THE    HOLY   ONE.  105 

xxxii.  17,  discussed  in  §  87,  and  specially  appealed  to  in  tliis  connection,  though 
in  the  Septuagint  it  is  rendered  daifxovia,  gives  us  in  its  true  meaning,  lords, 
nothing  but  the  concejition  of  the  henthen  (7).  It  is  rather*  characteristic  of  the 
antagonism  of  the  Old  Testament  to  tlie  "worship  of  idols,  that  the  images  are 
identified  with  the  gods  themselves,  and  thereby  the  nullity  of  the  latter  is 
shovrn  ;  compare  passages  like  Isa.  xliv.  9ff.,  Jer.  x.  3  ff.  In  Isa.  xlvi.  1  f.,  com- 
pared with  xli.  29,  the  distinction  between  the  gods  and  their  images  is  simply  ap- 
parent for  the  sake  of  vividness.  Note  also  the  practical  demonstration  of  tlie 
nullity  of  Baal,  1  Kings  xvin.  21  ff.  (at  the  scene  on  Carmel). 

(1)  Schultz,  in  his  Old  Testainent  Theologij,  p  440  ff.,  tre.-irs  the  question  on  the 
whole  very  well,  and  in  a  peculiar  way.  Compare  esj)ecially  tlie  thorough 
investigation  of  Baudissin  in  Part  I.  :  "The  Old  Testament  view  of  the  heathen 
gods." 

(2)  In  Isa.  vi.  8,  the  seraphim  are  comprehended  in  the  ^J^  ;  Zech.  xiv.  5  speaks 
of  the  descent  of  Jehovah  with  all  the  holy  ones. 

(3)  In  Gen.  xxviii.  15  f.,  the  promise  is  given  to  Jacob  that  God  will  lead 
him  wherever  he  goes  ;  Jacob  says  on  awaking  :  I  knew  not  that  God  is  also  in 
this  place.     Thus  the  too  exclusive  view  is  here  corrected. 

(4)  Vatke's  remarks  on  this  in  his  Religion  of  tlie  Old  Testament,  pp.  705-707, 
are  very  sound  ;  compare  also,  on  the  tendency  to  monotheism  in  tlie  Greek 
religion.  Roth's  review  of  Nagelsbach's  "  Homeric  Theology,"  Erl.  Zeitschr.  1841. 

(5)  Judg.  xi.  24.  Jephthah,  in  negotiating  with  Moab,  says  :  "Is  it  not  so, 
what  thy  god  Chemosh  gives  thee  to  inherit,  that  thou  inheritest?" 

(6)  Judaism  is  certainly  right  in  continually  proclaiming  the  passage  Deut. 
vi.  4  (called  the  J-'Pt^,  from  its  first  word)  as  the  most  holy  word,  which  includes 
the  fundamental  doctrine  of  monotheism. 

(7)  The  designation  of  the  heathen  gods  as  D'?'/^  (§  42)  speaks  also  against 
this  idea.  It  is  indeed  jDrobable  that  in  1  Cor.  viii.  4  ff. ,  x.  19  f.,  Paul,  when  he 
uses  the  word  Sai/nuvia  in  speaking  of  the  Greek  gods,  takes  it  from  the  LXX 
Deut.  xxxii.  17  ;  but  Paul  there  maintains,  in  my  opinion,  not  that  the  individual 
lieathen  gods  are  demons,  but  only  that  in  the  service  of  the  heathen  gods 
a  demonic  element  prevails. 


rV.  GOD  AS  THE  HOLY  ONE. 

§44. 

Formal  Definition  of  the  Idea. 

God  is  l^np,  the  nolv  One  (1).  Etymologically,  the  root-meaning  of  I^''"'|^ 
cannot  be  exactly  defined.  According  to  the  most  likely  view,  the  stem  K'lp 
is  related  to  K'ln,  cognate  with  the  root  ^^,,  as  the  root-meaning  of  Avhich, 
'''■  enituit,  to  break  forth  with  splendor."  is  to  be  accejited.  Thus  the  idea  of  the 
breaking  forth  of  brilliant  light  would  lie  in  the  word  ;  compare  specially  Isa. 
X.  17,  where  the  epithet  "Light  of  Israel''  corresponds  to  the  Holy  One  of 
Israel.  [  This,  view  must  be  given  up.  With  far  greater  probability  the  word 
Ji^np  must  be  referred  to  the  fundamental  meaning,  "  separated,"  from  which  the 
more  specific  meaning  "pure"  could  be  directly  derived.]  In  order  to  get  the 
full  biblical  meaning  of  the  word,  we  nnT^t  follow  the  historical  development  of 
the  thought. 


106  THE    DOCTRINES    AND    ORDINANCES    OF    MOSAISM,  [§   44. 

The  designation  of  God  as  the  Holy  One  appears  first  in  the  Old  Testament  at 
the  redemption  of  Israel  and  the  f^ouDding_of  the  theocracy.  The  first  declaration 
of  the  divine  holiness  is  found  in  Moses'  sonu'  of  piaise,  Ex.  xv.  11,  where  it  is 
said,  in  reference  to  God's  great  deeds  in  leading  Israel  out  of  Egypt  :  "  Who  is 
like  Thee  among  the  gods,  glorious  in  holiness,  to  be  praised  -with  awe,  doing 
wonders  V"  To  this  it  corresponds  that  Isiael  also,  when  received  into  the 
<  ovenant  of  God,  receives  the  predicate  of  the  holy  people,  xix.  6.  The  stamp 
of  holiness  is  so  imprinted  on  the  events  at  the  founding  of  the  theocracy,  that, 
as  Achelis  strikingly  reminds  us  (in  the  Studien  mid  Kritil-en,  1847,  p.  192),  in 
Ex.  XIX.  10,  14  the  expression  "sanctify"  is  used  for  the  same  action  which  is 
called  in  Gen.  xxxv.  2  "  cleanse  yourselves."  All  covenant  regulations  rest  on 
tlie  principle  :  I  am  holy,  and  ye  must  also  be  holy  (Lev.  xi.  44  f.,  and  passages 
like  xix.  2,  xx.  8,  xxi.  8). 

When  holiness  i^rediciited_of  the  covenant  people  and  covenant  ordinances,  two 
things  are  implied  :  1st,  being  taken  out  of  worldliness ;  2d,  being  appro- 
priated by  God, — a  relation  of  special  appropriation  to  Him.  Whenever  this 
character  of  holiness  pertains  to  anything,  this  never  rests  on  a  natural  quality. 
Nothing  created  is  in  itself  holy.  The  idea  of  natural  purity  and  impurity  does 
not  coincide  with  that  of  holiness  and  unholiness.  The  holiness  of  the  creature 
always  goes  back  to  an  act  of  the  divine  will,  to  divine  election  and  institution  (3). 
In  other  words  :  It  is  always  a  state  in  which  the  creature  is  bound  to  God  by 
the  appointment  of  God  Himself,  which  is  expressed  by  t^lp,  ^''"'p,  ^^p,  J^'TpH  ; 
whereas  the  opposite  expressions  vh,  77n,  inn,  etc.  (comp.  Lev.  x.  10,  xxii.  9, 
Ezek.  xxii.  26,  xxxvi.  21,  xxxix.  7,  etc.),  designate  the  profane  as  set  loose, 
freed,  and  abandoned  (4). 

Where  ^"'"'p  is  a  designation_of_a  divine  attribute,  there  evidently  lies  in  it 
primarily  a  negative  element,  by  which  it  designates  a  state  of  ajmrtness,  God 
raising^  Himself  up  above ^otli^ers.  So  Jehovah,  as  the  Holy  One,  stands  first  in 
oppositit)n  to  the  other,  imaginary  gods,  Ex.  xv.  11  :  "  Who  is  like  Thee  among 
the  gods  ?  who  is  like  Thee,  glorious  in  holiness  !"  And  then  also  in  opposition 
to  all  that  is  of  the  creature,  or,  more  generally  expressed,  to  all  that  is  not  He 
Himself,  Isa.  xl.  25  :  "To  whom  will  ye  compare  me  that  I  may  be  like  ?  saith 
the  Holy  One."  In  other  words:  As  the  Holy  One,  God  is  He  wlio  is  raised 
absolutely  above  the  world  ;  compare  Ps.  xcix.  2-5  where  God's  elevation  over 
all  people  is  connected  with  His  holiness  ;  Isa.  v.  16,  in  which  the  truth  that  the 
holy  God  sanctifies  Himself  in  justice  corresponds  to  His  being  exalted  by  judg- 
ment (comp.  ii.  17).  Accordingly  thisJUyine  elevation  is  God's  absolute  unique- 
ness, 1  Sam.  ii.  2  :  "  There  is  none  holy  like  Jehovah,  for  there  is  none  but  Thee." 
The  positive  expression  for  God's  absolute  elevation  and  uniqueness  w^ould  be, 
that  in  His  transcendence  above  the  world,  and  in  His  apartness  from  the  creat- 
ure, God  is  He  who  ever  preserves  His  own  proper  character,  maintaining  Him- 
self in  th.it  being  which  is  distinct  from  everything  created. 

This  element  of  the  divine  holiness  was  held  fast,  though  certainly  in  a  very 
superficial  manner,  by  those  who  defined  holiness  as  the  inconiparal)leness  and 
exclusive  adorableness  of  God.  Thus  Zacharia  in  his  Bihlical  Theohxjy,  and  more 
precisely  Stf)rr  in  his  Boctrina  Christiana,  §  30  (G).— Menken  and  his  school  op- 
posed this  conception  of  the  divine  holiness  (7).     In  opposition  to  the  ordinary 


§    44.]  FOEMAL   DEFINITION    OF    GOD    AS   THE    HOLY    ONE.  1U7 

conception,  they  maintained  that  the  divine  holiness  does  not  so  much  designate 
the  incomparable  glory  of  God,  as  His  condescending  grace.  His  self-abasmg  love, 
and  thus  does  not  express  the  divine  apartness  fromtlie  creature,  liu^rather  God's 
communication_j)f_jJimse]i_to  him ;  according  to  this,  the  expression  tS'''"'p  is 
synonymous  with  Tpn.  In  support  of  this  Menken  referred  to  the  following  pas- 
sages : — Ps.  ciii.,  in  which  in  ver.  1  the  writer  calls  upon  his  soul  to  praise  the 
divine  holiness,  and  then  praises  God  as  the  gracious  One,  He  who  forgives  sin 
and  frees  from  all  evil  (compare  also  Ps.  cv.  3)  ;  Hos.  xi.  8  f.,  where  the  divine 
holiness  is  placed  in  connection  with  divine  mercy  :  "My  mercies  are  kindled 
together.  I  will  not  execute  the  fierceness  of  my  fury,  I  will  not  destroy 
Ephraim  again  :  for  I  am  God,  and  not  man,  holy  in  the  midst  of  thee  ;"  compare 
further,  Ps.  xxii.  4,  xxxiii.  21,  and  other  texts. — It  was  not  difficult  to  show  that 
this  conception  of  Menken  does  not  do  justice  to  the  biblical  thought.  It  cannot 
be  denied  that,  when  God  reveals  Himself  in  His  holiness,  the  main  feeling 
awakened  in  man  is  the  feeling  of  timidity  before  the  severity  and  fearfulness  of 
the  Divine  Being  ;  thus  from  Ex.  iii.  5  onward,  and  (not  to  look  in  the  first 
instance  at  the  Pentateuch)  compare  further  e.  g.  1  Sam.  vi.  20,  in  which,  after  a 
dreadful  visitation,  it  is  said  :  "  Who  can  stand  before  Jehovah,  this  holy  God  ?" 
Isa.  vi.,  where  the  prophet,  on  hearing  the  Trisagion  of  the  seraphim,  cries  out, 
ver.  5,  "  Woe  is  me!  I  am  undone,  for  I  am  a  man  of  unclean  lips;"  v.  16, 
where,  in  reference  to  the  approaching  judgment,  it  is  said,  "The  holy  God 
sanctifies  Himself  in  righteousness."  The  Alexandrian  translators  had  a  correct 
feeling  for  this  element.  They  translated  the  word  ^^ITP  by  ayio^,  an  expression 
derived  from  a^oij.aL,  which  points  to  that  revering  dread  which  that  which  is  holy 
demands  for  itself  (8).  But  still,  on  the  other  side,  it  is  clear  from  the  above- 
cited  passages  that  the  conception  of  Menken  must  contain  an  element  of  truth  (9). 
This  element  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the  divine  holiness  contains  not  only  the 
divine  self-maintenance,  but  also  the  divine  self-dischsure,  since  God  as  the  Holy 
One  does  not  remain  in  Himself,  but  gives  effect  to  His  holiness  out  of  Himself, 
by  institutisg  a  sepa£ation^n_the_world,  for  His  own  aims,  electing  a.  pppple  out 
of  the  mass  of  the  nations  of  the  world,  accepting  them  as  Hisjjroperty,  and  im- 
printing on  the  ordinances  which  He  gives  to  this  people,  and  on  the  historical 
providence  by  which  they  are  guided,  the  stamp  of  this  separation  from  world- 
liness,  and  of  this  specificrelation  to  Himself.  See,  as  the  principal  passage.  Lev. 
XX.  26  :  "I  am  holy,  and  so  I  have  separated  you  from  among  the  nations  to 
be  mine."  Therefore  the  Holy  One  of  Israel  (10)  is  Israel's  Maker  (Isa.  xlv.  11) 
(compare  §  82),  Israel's  Redeemer  (xlix.  7)  (11)  ;  therefore  God,  as  the  holy  God, 
is  the  doer  of  miracles,  5<"73  nti';?,  properly  He  that  doeth  "  things  apart, "  Ex. 
XV.  11.  On  the  connection  of  the  idea  of  miracle  with  the  divine  holiness,  com- 
pare also  Ps.  Ixxvii.  14  f.,  xcviii.  1  (and  §  64)  (12).  The  way  in  whicli,  according 
to  what  has  been  just  developed,  two  things  lie  in  the  divine  holiness, — that  He 
stands  in  opposition  to  the  world,  and  again,  that  He  removes  this  opposition 
by  choosing  in  the  world  some  whom  he  places  in  communion  with  Himself,  or, 
to  make  use  of  Schmieder's  expression,  the  way  in  which  God's  holiness  is  the 
interpenetration  of  God's  self-maintenance  and  self-disclosure, — is  very  beauti- 
fully expressed  in  Isa.  Ivii.  15  :  "Thus  saith  the  high  and  lofty  One,  who  dwells 
eternally,  the  Holy  One  is  his  name  ;  I  dwell  in  the  heights  and  in  the  holy  place, 


108  THE  ])0(;tuixes  ani)  okdikances  of  mosaism.  [§  44. 

and  with  those  wlio  are  broken  and  liumble  in  spirit."  (13) — The  passages  urged 
by  Menken  are  also  explicable  from  what  has  been  noted.  All  demonstrations  of 
the  divine  covenant  of  grace  are  the  issues  of  the  divine  holiness.  Outside  of 
the  theocratic  relations  it  is  closed  to  the  world  ;  but  as  soon  as  the  world  comes 
into  connection  with  the  divine  kingdom,  it  receives  manifestations  of  the  divine 
holiness  (14). 

(1)  In  virtue  of  its  pregnancy,  the  divine  holiness  (J.  A.  Bengel  calls  it  vere 
inexhaustoB  signijicationis)  is  one  of  the  most  difficult  terms  in  the  Bible  to  define. 
Quite  opposite  views  of  its  meaning  have  been  brought  forward.  Of  the  litera- 
ture, compare  Achelis,  "Attempt  to  decide  the  Meaning  of  the  Word  t^Tp 
from  the  History  of  the  Divine  Revelation,"  in  Ullmann's  Studien  unci  Kritilen, 
1847,  p.  187  ff. ;  Rupprecht,  "  On  the  definition  of  God's  Holiness,"  in  the  same, 
1849,  p.  084  ff.  ;  Biihr,  Symbolih  des  mumischen  Eultus,  i.  p.  37,  ii.  p.  27  fl.  ; 
Ilofmann,  Der  Schriftbeweis,  i.  p.  81  fi.  ;  Lutz,  Bihl.  Dogmatih,  p.  89  ff.,  etc.  ; 
also  my  article,  "  Heiligkeit  Gottes,"  in  Herzog's  Ecal-EncyMop.  xix.  p.  618  ff. 
[and  Delitzsch'sart.  in  2d  ed.  of  Herzog].  Diestel  gives  the  most  comprehensive 
examination  of  the  matter,  "die  Heiligkeit  Gottes,"  Jahrliicher  fur  deutscTie 
Theol.  1859,  p.  3  ff.  [and  Baudissin,  A.  T.  Studien,  ii.  p.  5  ff.]. 

(2)  [Compare  on  the  etymology,  Baudissin,  p.  19  ff.,  and  the  art.  of  Delitzsch, 
p.  714  ff.] 

(3)  On  the  holiness  of  the  covenant  people,  comp.  §  82,  2. — In  the  same  way, 
the  character  of  holiness  is  attached  to  localities  which,  since  the  God  who  revealed 
Himself  in  Israel  manifests  His  presence  in  them,  have  become  appropriated  in 
an  especial  manner  by  Him.  First,  in  Ex.  iii.  5,  the  place  of  the  theophany  is 
called  holy  ground  ;  while  in  Gen.  xxviii.  17.  on  a  similar  occasion,  it  was  said, 
"  How  dreadful  (^"^iJ)  is  this  place  !"  Then  the  tabernacle  is  sanctified  by  being 
filled  with  the  splendor  of  God,  and  because  He  holds  intercourse  with  His  peo- 
ple from  this  place  (Ex.  xxix.  43  f.)  ;  the  camp  is  holy,  according  toT)eut.  xxiii. 
15,  because  Jehovah  walks  in  the  midst  of  ir.  And  further,  holiness  is  predi- 
cated of  the  times  set  apart  for  divine  worship  (as  early  as  Gen.  ii.  3),  in  speaking 
of  the  seventh  day  of  the  week,  because  there  already  the  writer  looks  forward 
to  the  theocratic  regulation  to  which  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath  really  belongs 
(see  later)  ;  lastly,  of  the  actions  in  which  the  people  give  effect  to  their  devo- 
tion to  God,  and  of  the  things  which  they  dedicate  to  Him,  and  which  thus  pass 
into  His  ownership. — Diestel,  I.e.,  has  said  very  rightly,  p.  7  :  "  Inside  Mosaism 
the  whole  sphere  of  the  holy  owes  its  origin  to  the  will  of  Jehovah,  who  is 
reckoned  throughout  as  an  absolutely  free  and  powerful  personality.  Therefore, 
in  the  most  exact  sense  of  the  word,  nothing  is  holy  in  and  for  itself  till  the  will 
of  Jehovah  declares  it  to  be  His  property."  Pee  the  details  under  the  head  of 
ordinances  of  worship. 

(4)  On  the  latter,  see  Hofmanu,  Der  Schriftleweis,  i.  p.  82.  But  we  cannot  agree 
with  Hofmann,  that  in  i^^'lp  the  relation  to  God  is  not  immediately  thought  of, 
and  that  it  means,  generally  speaking,  "what  stands  outside  the  common 
course,  the  common  order  of  things."  That  the  religious  signification  of  K'"n 
is  inseparable  from  the  word,  is  shown  also  by  the  expressions  l-'lp  and  Hll'lp, 
which  are  only  employed  in  respect  to  heathenism,  and  which  in  like  manner 
characterize  persons  dedicated  to  the  Deity. — It  is  quite  wrong  to  explain  the 
term  nnnbp  W^D  by  saying  that  war  "  breaks  through  the  common  daily  course  of 
life."  Nay,  in  all  those  passages  where  the  expression  occurs,  it  relates  to  a 
struggle  for  the  cause  of  God,  whether  this  is  the  real  design  (Joel  iv.  9)  or  only 
the  assertion  (Mic.  iii.  5)  of  the  combatants,  or  whether  tlie  notion  is,  that  the 
combat  is  ordained  to  execute  the  divine  counsel. 

(5)  Upon  this  element  of  divine  self-i)reservation,  compare  especially  Schmie- 
der,  Betrachtungen  ilher  das  hohepriestediche  Oeliet,  1848,  a  book  which  is  not 
known  so  well  as  it  deserves  to  be.     He  rightly  says,  p.  125  :  "  God's  holiness  is 


45.] 


FULLER    DEFINITION    OF    GOD    AS   THE    HOLY   ONE.  109 


God's  self-preservation,  by  virtue  of  vk'hich  He  remains  like  Himself  in  all  rela- 
tions which  either  are  in  Him  or  on  wliich  He  enters  in  any  way,  and  neither 
gives  up  any  part  of  His  divinity  nor  accepts  anything  ungodly." 

(6)  Zachariii,  I.e.  p.  243  :  I  am  holy,  means  :  "  None  may  be  honored  as  God, 
as  Jehovah  is  honored  in  Israel."  Storr,  I.e.:  "  Divina  natura  vocatur  sancta, 
h.  e.  scjuncta  ab  omnibus  aliis  et  incomparabilis." 

(7)  Menken's  Versuch  eiiier  Anleitung  zum  eigenen  Unterrieht  in  den  Wahrheiten 
der  Tieiligen  Schrift  (a  sort  of  popular  theology),  3d  ed.  1833,  p.  58  ff.  (complete 
edition  of  his  writings,  vi.  p.  46  ff.),  is  especially  to  be  named  ;  compare  also 
Achelis,  in  the  above-cited  essay,  p.  198  f. 

(8)  See  on  this  point  the  subtile  remarks  by  Zezschwitz,  Profangrdcitdt  und 
libl.  Spt'achgeist,  1859,  p.  15. 

(9)  "  Holiness,"  says  Schmieder  (I.e.  125)  correctly,  "  would  not  be  holiness, 
but  exclusiveness,  if  it  did  not  presuppose  God's  entrance  into  multifarious  rela- 
tions, and  thereby  the  revelation  and  communication  of  Himself." 

(10)  On  tlie  title,  "  The  Holy  One  of  Israel,"  see  Caspari,  in  the  Zeitselir. 
fllr  hither.  Theol.  1844,  iii.  p.  93  ff.  _ 

(11)  The  restoration  of  Israel  is  also  an  issue  of  the  divine  holiness,  since  God 
in  virtue  of  this  attribute,  effaces  the  antithesis  in  which  tlie  rejection  of  Israel 
stands  to  His  purpose  of  election  (Ezek.  xxxvi.  16  ff.,  xxxvii.  26-38). 

(13)  Diestel  errs  decidedly  wlien  lie  (l.e.  p.  11)  says  :  "  Jehov^ah  is  holy,  inas- 
much as  He  belongs  to  the  people  of  Israel,  is  Israel's  property." 

(13)  [Against  tiie  view  that  the  self-disclosure  of  God  is  contained  in  the  idea 
of  the  divine  liolinoss,  Baudissin  urges  the  etymology  of  K/Tlp,,  the  intransitive 
meaning  of  which  makes  it  impossible  to  explain  it  as  "imparting  the  attribute 
of  holiness"  (p.  32).  If  the  concrete  idea  of  holiness  for  the  root  i^lp  was 
settled  wlien  the  adjective  tl'np  was  formed,  the  objection  of  Baudissin  would 
be  pertinent,  and  ti'l^p  could  only  signify  one  who  jiossef^ses  this  attribute  of  holi- 
ness, and  not  one  who  imparts  it.  But  Baudissin  himself  shows  th;it  the  ety- 
mology of  the  word  gives  only  the  signification  "  separated,"  and  we  must  derive 
the  idea  from  wliat  is  said  of  the  holy  (cf.  e.g.  p.  79  f.).  The  etymological  sig- 
nification of  tlie  word  presents  us  with  the  problem  to  be  investigated,  viz., 
what  in  God  is  the  specific,  peculiar,  and  singular  thing  on  account  of  which  he 
is  indicated  by  "^'np  as  the  separated  or  singuhir  one,  or,  as  Baudissin  himself 
says,  "  What  special  attribute  ascribed  to  the  Deity  was  regarded  as  so  central  that 
.  .  .  in  it  could  be  found  the  expression  in  general  of  the  divine  existence  ?"  Tiiat 
wliich  constitutes  holiness,  therefore,  cannot  be  determined  by  the  original  signi- 
fication of  the  word. — But  the  real  question  is,  whether  the  passages  which  have 
been  urged,  as  making  the  sclf-dischsnre  of  God  an  element  in  tlie  idea  of  holiness, 
sustain  this  view.  Comp.  against  it  the  remarks  of  Baudissin  on  Isa.  Ivii.  15,  Hos. 
xi.  9,  Ps.  ciii.  etc.,  p.  108  f.  The  translation  of  Lev.  xx.  26,  "I  am  holy,  and  so 
have  I  separated  you,"  which  represents  the  election  of  Israel  as  the  result  of  the 
divine  holiness,  is  regarded  by  Baudissin  (p.  95)  as  changing  the  meaning.  The 
1  consecutive  in  7""13X1,  which  is  made  to  mean  "  and  so,"  may  be  understood  as  ex- 
pressing a  different  thought.  Baudissin  thinks  it  to  be,  not  that  Israel's  election  is 
an  effect  of  the  holiness  of  Jehovah,  but  that  the  requirement  of  holiness  from 
Israel  is  placed  on  the  ground  that  he  who  has  chosen  Israel  as  his  own  is  holy.] 

(14)  Compare  also  the  doctrine  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  the  theology  of 
prophecy. 

§45. 

Fuller  Definition  of  the  Idea. 

But  the  idea  of  the  divine  holiness  has  been  only  formally  defined  by  what  we 
have  said  hitherto.  If,  in  order  to  come  at  the  concrete  sid£  of  the  matter,  we 
proceed  from  the  question,  "What  is  the  meaning  of   God''s  sanetifi/inQ  a  )>eoj>le_U) 


110  THE    DOCTRINES   AND    ORDTNANCES    OF    MOSAISM.  [§   45. 

UlmseJfJ — generally  speaking,  the  answer  is,  that  it  relates  to  the  restoration  of 
a  perfect  life,  both  inwardly  and  outwardly  (1).  Now,  if  we  argue  from  this  to 
jthe  meaning  of  the  divine  holiness,  it  may  be  defined  concretely  as  an  absolute 
hjerfection^  Z/Zg^Jjut  essentially  in  an  ethical  sense.  Many,  indeedj_have  gone 
further,  among  whom  are  J.  A.  Bengel  (2)  and  Rupprecht  ;  the  view  of  the  latter 
{I.e.  p.  G91)  comes  to  this,  that  the  holiness  of  God  designates  the  whole  divine 
perfection,  majesty,  and  blessedness,  "  tlie  whole  complex  of  that  which  we,  in 
our  human  imperfection  and  shortsightedness,  are  wont  to  look  at  and  represent 
singly  in  the  individual  attributes  of  God."— It  is  indeed  true  that  the  notions  of 
divine  holiness  and  glory  are  related.  We  may  say,  with  Oetinger,  holiness  is 
liidden  glory,  and  glory  disclosed  holiness.  The  tabernacle  and  the  temple,  for 
example,  are  sanctified,  because  Jehovah  filled  them  with  His  glory,  and  made 
His  dwelling-place  in  them  (Ex.  xl.  34  ;  1  Kings  viii.  11).  In  the  same  way,  in 
Isa.  vi.  3,  the  praise  of  God  as  the  Iloly  One  corresponds  to  the  proclamation, 
The  earth  is  full  of  His  glory.  But  the  divine  glory  reaches  beyond  the  spheres 
in  which  the  divine  holiness  operates.  When  it  is  said  in  Gen.  viii.  2,  "  How 
glorious  is  Thy  name  in  all  the  earth  !"  it  could  not  be  said  in  the  same  sense. 
"  How  lioly  is  Thy  name,"  etc.  God's  glory  extends  over  nature,  and  is  attrib- 
uted to  Him  Ijy  all  His  creatures  (Ps.  civ.  31)  ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  course  of 
nature  serves  the  divine  holiness  only  so  far  as  God  employs  it  for  the  pur- 
poses of  His  kingdom,  and  makes  use  of  the  powers  of  nature  for  them.  So, 
also,  the  divine  spirit  is  not  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  cosmical  principle  of  life,  but 
is  such  only  as  it  rules  in  the  theocracy  (Tsa.  Ixiii.  10  f.  ;  Ps.  li.  13). 

From  tliis  it  is  sufficiently  clear  that  the  unlimited  extension  of  the  idea  of  the 
divine  hoiiuess  above  cited  cannot  bejiojrcct.  But  let  us  consider,  further,  what 
sort  of  fear  it  is  that  seizes  man  when  God_is  revealed  as  the  Holy  One.  It  is 
(■videutly  not  simply  the  feeling  of  creature  weakness,  but  predominantly  and  spe- 
cifically the  feeling  of  human  sinfulness  and  impurity  (Isa.  vi.  5  and  elsewhere). 
Hence  it  follow^s  that  the  divine  holiness,  even  if,  as  absolute  perfection  of  life, 
it  involves  the  negation  of  all  bonds  of  creature  finitude  (from  which  passages  like 
Isa.  xl.  25  are  explained),  is  nevertheless  mainly  separation  from  the  impurity  and 
,ui{fiilness_of  the  creature,  or,  expressed  positively,  the  clearness  and  purity  of  the 
divine  nature,  which  excludes  all  communion  with  what  is  wicked.  In  this  sense 
the  symbolical  designation  of  the  divine  holiness  is,  that  God  is  lixiht  (comp.  Isa. 
X.  17)  (3). — Now  with  this  corresponds  the  fact,  that  the  divine  holiness,  as  a 
revealed  attribute,  is  not  an  abstract  power,  which  merely  pronounces  over  the 
finite,  as  such,  the  judgment  of  nothingness,  but  is  the  divine  self-representation 
and  self-testimony  for  the  purpose  of  giving  to  the  world  a  participation  in  the 
perfection  of  the  divine  life  (4). — By  means  of  this  ethical  conception  of  divine 
holiness,  the  Old  Testament  is  distinguished  from  Islam,  in  which  the  designa- 
tion of  God  as  the  Holy  King  shows  mertly  the  divine  elevation  and  majesty,  and 
therefore  in  Islam  the  divine  righteousness  is  also  conceived  of  as  the  mere  ex- 
pression of  the  power  of  the  omniscient  and  omnipotent  one  (5). 

(1)  See  Diestel,  I.e.  p.  12  If. 

(2)  On  this  subject  13engel  expresses  himself  in  a  letter  to  Kasp.  Neumann  (see 
I^engel's  Literary  Correspondence,  published  by  Burk,  1S36,  p.  .'i2  ff.)  :  "  De  Deo 
ubi  scriptura  nomen  illud  W\'p  enunciat,  statuo  non  denotare  solam   puritatem 


§  46.]     CHARACTERISTICS  CONNECTED  WITH  THE  DIVINE  HOLINESS.      Ill 

voluntatis,  sed  quicquid  de  Deo  cognoscitur,  et  quicquid  insuper  de  Illo,  si  se 
uberius  revelare  velit,  cognosci  possit,"  etc.,  ou  which  he  seeks  to  prove  that  all 
the  divine  attributes,  also  the  divine  self-existence,  eternity,  omnipotence,  etc., 
are  contained  in  lioliness.  (The  letter  written  in  1712  is,  however,  to  be  recog- 
nized as  a  rather  immature  and  youthful  work  in  the  whole  style  of  treatment.) 

(3)  Compare  the  definition  of  the  divine  holiness  in  Quenstedt  as  Summa  in  Uco 
jniritas  ;  also  Thomasius,  Dogmutik  i.  p.  137,  and  especially  p.  141  ;  Godet,  hi 
Sdhdete  de  Dieu,  Neuch.  18G4,  p.  8.  [So  substantially  Ewald  understands  the 
divine  holiness.     {Lelire  von  Gott,  ii.  p.  239  f.).] 

(4)  In  antithesis  to  the  heathen  gods,  who  more  or  less  foster  wickedness  and 
are  its  patrons,  it  is  said  of  Israel's  God,  Ps.  v.  5  ff.,  "  Thou  art  not  a  God  wliom 
crime  delighteth,  neither  shall  a  wicked  person  dwell  with  Thee  ;  the  insolent 
shall  not  appear  before  Thine  eyes  ;  Thou  hatest  all  that  do  evil  ;  Thou  blottest 
out  those  who  speak  lies  ;  Jehovah  abhors  the  man  of  lying  and  blood."  In  k  C- 
erence  to  this  ethical  meaning  of  the  divine  holiness,  compare  also  Hos.  xi.  U, 
where  God  is  called  "the  Faithful  and  Holy  One  ;"  Hab.  i.  12,  in  connection 
with  ver.  13  ;  Job  vi.  10  [also  John  xvii.  11,  17]. 

(5)  See  on  this,  Dettinger,  "  Beitrage  zu  einer  Theologie  desKorans, ''  in  the 
Tiibinger  Zeitschr.fur  Theol.  1834,  i.  p.  25. 


§46. 

Characteristics  cojmscted^-with  the  Divine   SuLmess:    1.  Impossibility  of  Picturing 
God,  Omnipresence,   Spirituality. 

A  number  of  other  characteristics  of  the  Divine  Being  are  connected  with  the 
idea  of  the  divine  holiness,  and  must  now  be  enumerated. 

Inasmuch  as  the  divine  holiness  is  the  separateness  of  the  Divine  Being  from 
all  finiteness  of  the  creature,  it  includes  the  irnjyossihility  of  forming  an  image  of 
the  Divine  Being.  For  the  connection  of  the  two  ideas  compare  the  passage  Isa. 
xl.  25,  already  quoted  (§  44).  On  this  is  grounded  the  prohibition  of  represent- 
ing God  by  an  image.  It  is  true  that  no  more  would  follow  directly  from  the 
passages  Ex.  xx.  4,  Deut.  v.  8,  than  that  God  is  not  to  be  represented  by  the 
image  of  any  existing  creature.  But  Deut.  iv.  15  ff.  sliows  that  the  prohibition 
of  any  figure  and  form  of  the  Divine  Being  is  absolute.  And  not  only  is  the 
representation  of  the  Divine  Being  by  an  image  made  by  the  hand  of  man  ex- 
cluded, but  also  the  adoration  of  the  divine  in  the  constellations,  ver,  19  com- 
pared with  xxix.  25  (1).  Now  if,  on  the  other  hand,  a  niri'  nj^DJ])  is  spoken 
of  in  Num.  xii.  8,  we  are  to  understand  here,  as  in  the  theophanies  spoken  of  in 
Genesis,  that  there  is  a  distinction  between  the  sinking  of  God's  being  into  visi- 
bility, and  that  being  in  itself  (2).  Neither  can  any  argument  contradictory  to 
the  clear  utterances  of  the  Old  Testament  as  to  the  idea  of  God  be  drawn  from 
anthropomorphisms — using  the  word  in  the  more  limited  sense,  in  distinction  from 
anthropopathies,  to  denote  those  expressions  in  the  Scriptures  in  which  parts  of 
the  human  body,  or  more  generally  the  senses,  are  transferred  to  God,  so  that 
eyes,  ears,  nose,  etc.,  and  hence- seeing,  hearing,  smelling,  and  the  like,  are  used 
in  speaking  of  Him.  No  religion  can  dispense  with  such  ant]in3]K2morphic_ex- 
pressktas  when  it  enters  into  the  sphere  of  representative  thought,  and  everything 
depends  on  making  it  sure  that  the  literal  application  of  such  expressions  shall 
be  corrected  by  the  whole  conception  of  the  idea  of  God  (3).     It  is  also  to  be 


112  THE    DOCTRINES    AND    ORDINANCES    OF   MOSAISM.  [§    47. 

noted,  that  in  tlie  Inter  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  whicli  iire  found  the 
strongest  ntterances  on  tire  freedom  of  the  Divine  Being  from  creature  forms  (as 
Ps.  I.  12  f.,  etc.),  the  anthropomorphisms  are  not  the  less  frequent — Still  the 
question  remains  to  be  answered,  ichetlier  and  how  far,  according  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, the  Divijw^eim^J^sJreedJj^  the  limitations  of  space.  It  is  self-evident  that 
the  Pentateuch  regards  God,  to  whom,  Deut.  x.  14,  the  heaven  and  the  heavens 
of  heaven,  the  earth  and  all  that  is  upon  it,  belong,  as  omnipresent,  even  when 
such  express  delineations  of  omnipresence  as  in  Ps.  cxxxix.  are  not  found  in  the 
Pentateuch.  In  different  passages,  however,  it  is  explicitly  declared  that  wher- 
ever man  is,  God  gives  him  to  experience  Ilis  protecting  nearness,  or  more  gener- 
ally expressed.  His  communion.  Compare  such  passages  as  Gen.  xvi.  .13,  xxviii.  15 
ff.,  xlvi.  4,  etc.  Beyond  this,  the  Pentateuch  has  mainly  to  do  with  the  s]jecuil 
presence  which  God  gives  by  living  among  His  jjeople,  when  He  localizes  His 
face.  His  name,  His  glory — the  so-called  Shekhina  (comp.  §  G3).— The  express 
declaration  that  God  hspji'it  does  not  occur  in  the  Old  Testament,  which  is 
rather  accustomed  to  say  that  God  has  the  spirit,  and  causes  it  to  go  out  from 
Him  ;  by  which,  however,  the  Spirit  is  indicated  as  the  element  of  God's  life  ; 
compare  Isa.  xl.  13,  Ps.  cxxxix.  7,  and  further  the  contrast,  Isa.  xxxi.  8.  The 
absolute  personality  of  God  is  pregnantly  expressed  in  the  word  5<in  'JX,  "  I  am 
He,"  Deut.  xxxii.  39,  Isa.  xliii.  10. 

(1)  Deut.  iv.  15  ff.  :  "  Take  ye  therefore  good  heed  unto  yourselves  ;  for  ye 
saw  no  manner  of  figure  (nJiaj;=l-73)  when  Jehovah  spake  to  you  in  Horeb  out  of 
the  midst  of  the  fire,"  etc.  Ver.  19  :  "Thou  shalt  not  lift  up  thine  eyes  imto 
heaven  ;  and  when  thou  seest  the  sun  and  the  moon  and  the  stars,  all  the  host  of 
heaven,  thou  shalt  not  suffer  thyself  to  be  seduced  to  worship  them,  and  to  serve 
them,  which  .Jehovah  thy  God  hath  divided  unto  all  nations  under  heaven." 
That  the  sense  of  the  latter  words  is  not  that  .Jehovah  has  divided  the  stars  as 
lights  and  measurements  of  time  to  all  the  nations  imder  heaven,  cannot  accord- 
ing to  the  use  of  piT}  in  xxix.  25,  be  doubted.  The  meaning  is  that  while  Israel 
has  the  revelation  of  the  true  God,  the  nations  of  the  earth  have  been  left  to 
worship  the  constellations. 

(2)  On  this,  see  the  doctrine  of  revelation. 

(3)  Luther  says  in  his  Commentary  on  Genesis,  in  reference  to  this  :  "  Qui 
extra  ista  involucra  Deum  attingere  volunt,  isti  sine  scalis  nituntur  ad  coelum 
ascendere. — Necesse  enira  est,  ut  Deus  cum  se  nobis  revelat,  id  faciat  per  velamen 
et  involucrum  quoddam,  et  dicat  :  ecce  sub  hoc  involucro  me  certe  apjirehendes." 

§  47. 

2.    The  Divine  Righteousness,  Faithf^dness  and  Truth. 

With  the  Divine  holiness  in  its  ethical  character  are  connected  the  attributes  of 
divine  righteousness  and  divine  faithfulness  and  truth.  These  attributes  are 
united  in  the  main  passage,  Deut.  xxxii.  4.  This  passage  characterizes  Jehovah 
as  the  rock,  that  is,  as  the  immovable  basis  of  confidence  ;  and  gives  the  reason 
for  this  by  pointing  to  the  perfection  iind  unblamal>leness  of  the  Divine  Being 
and  government,  in  virtue  of  which  God  is  designated  the  Truthful  and  Kight- 
eous  One.  Here  w^e  must  first  consider  what  is  meant  by  the  divine  righteous- 
ness (nfjnv). 


47.]     THE  DIVINE  RIGHTEOUSNESS,  FAlTHELLNESS  AND  TliUTH.  113 


— GodisP^^.  The  root-meaning  of  [^  is  (according  to  the  Arabic)  ' '  to  be 
straight  ;"  and  thus,  according  to  its  original  meaning,  the  expression  corresponds 
most  nearly  with  lii'*,  with  which  it  is  united  in  the  above  passage.  The  word  p^^^ 
expresses  what  is  straight  and  right,  in  the  sense  that  God  in  His  government 
always  does  what  is  suitable  :  namely,  tirst,  what  answers  fully  to  His  aim  ;  and 
secondly,  what  answers  to  the  constitution  of  the  object  of  the'  divine  action. 
Specially-,  but  not  exclusively,  the  hphcie  in  which  the  i^jHV  manifests  itself  is  the 
judicial  activity  of  God.  But  the  divine  righteousness,  notwithstanding  its  close 
connection  with  divine  holiness,  has  the  peculiarity  that  its  sjihere  of  action 
extenjls  beyond  the  theocracy  and  theocratic  relations  ;  nay,  in  one  passage  in  the 
Old  Testament,  even  the  animals_are  comprehended  under  the  government  of  the 
divine  i^P"'^,  Ps.  xxxvi.  /  (2)  ;  a  declaration  on  which  Jonah  iv.  11  sheds  light. 
Still  the  proper  sphere  of  the  righteous  government  of  God  is  mankind,  and  this 
without  qualification,  even  where  men  stand  in  no  special  relation  to  the  divine 
kingdom.  According  to  Gen.  xviii.  25,  Jehovah  is  judge  of  all  tjuuiarth,  and  as 
such  He  will  do  right,  and  not  permit  the  lot  of  the  godless  to  fall  on  the  right- 
eous (3).  In  this  connection,  in  which  God  gives  to  every  one  his  due,  p'lV  ap- 
pears also  in  Ex.  ix.  27,  where  Pharaoh  says,  in  giving  honor  to  God's  right- 
eousness :  "  Jehovah  is  the  Righteous  One  (p'^?^n),  I  and  my  people  are  the 
offenders  (D'i»"^"^ri)."  This  passage  and  that  of  Deut.  xxxii.  4,  from  which  we 
started,  are  the  only  ones  in  the  Pentateuch  in  which  the  righteousness  of  God  is 
expressly  mentioned.  The  principle  of  the  theocratic  ordinances  is  holiness. 
Certainly  what  is  said  in  Isa.  v.  16,  in  reference  to  the  judgment,  "  The  holy  God 
is  sanctified  by  righteousness,''  must  apply  in  general  to  the  government  of  God 
in  His  kingdom  (as  presented  already  in  the  Pentateuch);  all  God's  deeds  which 
constitute  the  divine  guidance  of  the  kingdom,  and  bring  about  the  right,  the 
D'pa^P  which  the  Pentateuch  sets  forth,  are  thus  manifestations  of  His  np"|i,'. 
But  to  specify  the  •^p'l^  as  the  attribute  which  acts  in  securing  the  holy  aim  of 
His  kingdom  pertains  to  prophecy,  while  the  general  ethical  relations  of  the 
divine  righteousness  are  discussed  in  the  Psalms  and  in  the  Hebrew  Hhokhma. 

As  in  the  idea  of  Jehovah  who  is  absolutely  immutable  (comp.  §  39),  so  also  in 
the  idea  of  the  holy  One  in  virtue  of  its  ethical  meaning,  the  attribute  of  truth 
and  faithfulness  is  given  ;  compare  Isa.  xlix.  7,  J9Hv  "^"^^  '^)^''.  ;  IIos.  xi.  9, 
\m:  D'tJ/np  =  the  faithful  All-holy  One.  Hence  God  is  called  HPOK  Si*  in  the 
above-cited  passage  in  Deut.  xxxii.  4,  and  in  Ps.  xxxi.  6  r\'OVi  IVi  ;  and  the  ap- 
pellation of  God  as  11V,  rock,  safe  retreat,  in  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy  refers  to 
this.  The  antiquity  of  this  last  name  is  indicated  by  its  frequent  occurrence  in 
personal  names  in  the  Pentateuch  :  "ilV'bx  (my  God  is  a  rock).  Num.  i.  5  ;  ^X'T^^f 
(my  rock  is  God),  iii.  3o  ;  'W^.^^  (my  rock  is  the  Almighty),  i-  C  ;  1ivni9  (the 
rock  redeems),  i.  10  (comp.  §  88,  note  8).  In  the  Old  Testament  this  attribute  is 
specially  emphasized  in  referring  to  the  divine  wo/rZ  of  pVimise,  and  the  agree- 
ment of  the  divine  action  therewith.  One  of  the  chief  passages  in  the  Penta- 
teuch is  Num.  xxiii.  19  ;  compare  1  Sam.  xv.  29,  Ps.  xxxvi.  6. 

(1)  Compare  Diestel,  "  Die  Idee  der  Gerechtigkeit,  vorziiglich  im  A.  T.,  bib- 
lisch-theologisch  dargestellt,"  Jahri.  fur  deutsche  Theol.  1800,  p.  173  ff.  [and 
Kautsch,   Ueher  die  Berivate  des  Stammes  p^V,  Tiib.  1881]. 


114  THE    bOCTUiNES    AND    OUDlNAKCES    OF    MOSAISM.  [§   4^. 

(2)  [As  tlie  diflurciit  niciinings  of  tlic  deiivatives  of  this  root  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment may  be  traced  back  to  ilie  idea  of  conformity  to  a  rule,  so  also  accordin<f 
to  Kautsch,  the  fundaintutal  meaning  of  the  root  in  Arabic  is  not,  as  is  usually 
regarded,  "to  be  straight,"  but  "to  be  accordant,"  and  so  with  an  external 
rule,  or  a  matter  of  fact.] 

(3)  In  this  lies  an  element  which  is  quite  essential  to  the  Hpni',  namely,  that  it 
is  always  action  by  rule  and  measure. 

§48. 
3.    Tlie  Jealous    God. 

Lastly,  it  is  included  in  the  idea  of  divine  holiness  that  God  is  a  iealous  Ood. 
«Jp.  %  (or  KiJp  bX),  Ex.  xxxiv.  14  (1)  ;  Deut.  vi.  15.  The  divine  zeal  is  the 
energy  of  the  divine  holiness  ;  this  idea  stands  in  the  same  relation  to  that  of  holi- 
ness as  the  idea  of  'H  IK  to  that  of  Jehovah  ;  hence  it  is  said  in  Josh.  xxiv.  19  : 
"  The  All-holy  God,  that  is,  the  i<ii3p  ^K."    The  divine  HWp  has  a  twofold  form  : 

1.  It  turns  itself  avengingly  against  every  violation  of  the  divine  will.  In  vir- 
tue of  His  "l^^^^,  the  holy  God  extirpates  all  that  sets  itself  in  opposition  to  Him. 
God's  jealousy  turns  especially  against  idolatry,  by  which  the  divine  uniqueness 
is  assailed,  see  e.g.  Deut.  xxxii.  21  (2),  and  generally  against  all  sin  by  which 
God's  holy  name  is  desecrated  ;  the  El-qanna  is  |1J^  np3,  Ex.  xx.  5  compared 
with  Josh.  xxiv.  19.  Thus  the  divine  HNjp  manifests  itself  as  divine  icrath,  ^Xp, 
n^,  "^T^V.,.,  and  similar  expressions  (3).  For  wrath  (as  UUmann  has  strikingly 
defined  it)  is  the  strong  excitement  of  the  voluntative  {icollenden)  spirit  in  resist- 
ance to  restraint,  and  thus  the  wrath  of  God  is  the  most  intense  energy  of  the 
holy  will  of  God,  the  zeal  of  His  wounded  love.  Compare,  on  the  connection  of 
the  two  ideas,  jealousy  and  wrath,  Deut.  vi.  15,  xxxii.  21  f.,  Ps.  Ixxviii.  58  f. 
The  consuming  power  of  wrath  is  symbolized  by  fire  ;  hence  in  Deut.  iv.  24  it  is 
said,  "A  consuming  fire  is  the  NJp  Su,"  a  fire  which  burns  down  to  Hades; 
comp.  xxxii.  21  f.  The  inner  essential  connection  of  w^ath  with  the  divine  holi- 
ness is  made  especially  clear  by  the  passage  Isa.  x.  17  :  "  The  Light  of  Israel 
becomes  a  fire,  and  his  Holy  One  a  flame,  which  burns  and  consumes  his  thorns  and 
briers."  Because  wrath  is  a  manifestation  of  divine  holiness,  the  occasion  of  its 
outburst  (as  Ritschl  and  Diestel  have  rightly  urged)  does  not  lie  in  a  capricious 
divine  humor  or  natural  malignity,  as  the  gods  of  the  heathen  fall  into  a  pas- 
sion, but  wholly  in  the  person  smitten  by  it.  If  man  denies  and  rejects  the  testi- 
mony of  the  holy  God  which  was  given  to  him,  justice  must  be  executed  upon  him 
in  his  resistance  to  God's  will,  which  alone  is  in  the  right,  by  his  being  reduced  to 
his  own  nothingness.  Breach  of  the  covenant,  and  the  malignant  interference  with 
the  aim  of  the  covenant,  are  the  offences  that  chiefly  kindle  the  divine  wrath  ; 
comp.  Ex.  xxxii.  10,  Num.  xxv.  3,  Deut.  xxxi.  17  in  connection  with  ver.  16.  The 
opposite  of  the  divine  wrath  is  what  the  Old  Testament  expresses  by  Dnj,  Dnjnn, 
which  literally  mean  breathing  in,  fetching  one's  breath.  But  the  manifestation 
of  wrath  also  receives  its  measure  from  divine  holiness,  which  measure  is 
ordained  by  the  divine  aim  of  salvation,  and  hence  it  is  not  the  sway  of  blind 
passion  ;  comp,  passages  like  Hos.  xi.  9,  Jer.  x.  24,  and  the  parable  Isa. 
xxviii.  23  flf.  (4). 


5<   48.]  THE   JEALOUS   GOD.  115 

2.  Jehovah  is  jealous  not  for  Himself  aloae,  but  also  for  Ilk  holy  people,  so  far 
as  they  are  iu  a  position  of  grace,  or  are  taken  into  favor  again  by  Him.  From 
this  side  the  HXJp  is  the  zeal  of  love,  as  an  energetic  vindication  of  the  unmatched 
relation  in  which  God  has  placed  His  people  to  Himself.  The  idea  is  found  in 
Deut.  xxxii.  36  ff. ;  but  the  expression  '^  NJp,  "  to  be  jealous  for,"  is  not  found  till 
the  prophets,  .Joel  ii.  18,  Zech.  i.  14,  viii.  2.  On  this  side  also  the  HXJp  is  a 
kindling,  but  a  kindling  in  pity  ;  comp.  Hos.  xi.  8,  'PTIJ  ^"'P^J.  According 
to  this,  God's  sparing  mercy,  /DH,  Joel  ii.  18,  is  developed  from  HNJp.  The 
connection  of  these  notions  stands  out  with  special  distinctness  in  Ex.  xxxii.  ff. 
When  the  divine  wrath  goes  out  against  tlie  people,  xxxii.  10,  after  the  first 
breach  of  the  covenant  at  Sinai,  Moses  appeases  it,  ver.  11  f.,  by  awakening  the 
other  side  of  the  divine  zeal,  inasmuch  as  it  is  a  point  of  honor  with  God  as 
against  Egypt  to  complete  the  work  of  redemption  begun  for  the  people  ;  and 
so  the  manifestation  of  wrath  turns  round  and  makes  room  for  the  divine  mercy, 
xxxiv.  6. — The  anthropopathies  of  the  Old  Testament  come  for  the  most  part 
under  what  is  here  discussed  ;  that  is,  those  declarations  concerning  God  in  which 
human  emotions,  and  changes  in  these  emotions,  are  attributed  to  Him.  These,  in 
the  sense  of  the  Old  Testament,  are  not,  like  the_ajithrapomQrplusms,  to  be 
regarded  purely  as  figurative  expressions.  They  actually  express  real  relations  of 
God  to  the  world,  and  are  only  designated  after  the  analogy  of  human  condi- 
tions. If  a  change  of  such  conditions  is  spoken  of,  this  means  only  a  change  of 
the  relation  in  which  the  divine  holiness,  which  is  in  itself  changeless,  enters  to 
changeable  man.  And  so  it  can  be  said,  Ps.  xviii.  25  f . :  "  Towards  the  pious 
Thou  showest  Thyself  pious  ;  to  the  upright  man  Thou  showest  Thyself  upright ; 
towards  the  pure  Thou  showest  Thyself  pure  ;  and  to  the  perverse  Thou  showest 
Thyself  perverse."  The  same  God  whose  guidance  approves  itself  to  the  pious 
as  pure  and  good,  must  appear  like  a  malicious  power  to  the  perverse  whose 
path  He  crosses.  Especially  1  Sam.  xv.  shows  that  the  Old  Testament  does  not 
suppose  a  change  in  the  divine  nature  itself.  Samuel  says,  ver.  29  :  "  The  Rock 
of  Israel  does  not  deceive,  and  does  not  repent  of  anything  ;  for  He  is  not  a  man, 
that  He  should  repent  of  anything  ;"  and  immediately  after  it  is  said,  ver.  35  : 
"Jehovah  repented  that  He  had  made  Saul  king."  The  anthropopathies  serve 
to  keep  wakeful  and  strong  the  consciousness  of  the  living  holy  God,  the  idea  of 
whom  man  so  willingly  volatilizes  into  abstractions. 

(1)  Ex.  xxxiv.  14  :  "  Jehovah,  the  jealous  One,  is  His  name  ;  He  is  a  jealous 
God." 

(2)  Deut.  xxxii.  21  :  "  They  provoked  my  jealousy,  'J^^Jp,  by  their  idols." 

(3)  The  wrath  of  God  has  of  late  years  been  discussed  in  several  monographs. 
Comp.  Ritschl.  De  ira  Dei,  1859,  also  his  Lehre  von  der  Rechtfertigxmg  II.  118  if.; 
Weber,  Vom  Zovne  Oottes,  1862  ;  Bartholomai,  "  VomZorne  Gottes, "  in  the  Jahr- 
Imch.  fur  deutsche  Theol.  1861,  p.  256  ff. 

(4)  Hos.  xi.  9  :  "I  will  not  execute  the  fierceness  of  my  anger,  nor  destroy 
Ephraim  again  ;  for  I  am  God  and  not  man,  holy  in  the  midst  of  thee." — Com- 
pare further  the  prophetic  part  of  the  book. 


116  THE   DOCTRINES  AND   ORDINANCES   OF   MOSAISM.  [§   50. 

SECOND   CHAPTEK.  « 

THE  RELATION  OF  GOD  TO  THE  WORLD. 

§49. 

General  Survey. 

The  existence  of  the  world  as  absolutely  due  to  the  divine  causality  is  pre- 
sented in  three  propositions  : — 

1.  When  reflection  is  directed  k)  the  existence  of  the  world,  both  as  to  its  begin- 
ning and  as  to  its  subsistence,  we  reach  the  doctrine  of  the  creation  and  preser- 
vation of  the  world. 

2.  When  we  consider  how  the  world  is  so,  and  not  otherwise,  we  get  the  doc- 
trine of  the  aim  of  the  world  and  of  divine  providence,  with  which  is  connected 
the  question  of  the  relation  of  the  divine  causality  to  the  wickedness  and  evil  in  the 
world. 

3.  For  the  realization  of  His  aim,  God  enters  on  a  peculiar  relation  to  the  world; 
the  means  by  which  God  brings  about  this  His  special  relation  to  the  world  are 
exhibited  in  the  doctrine  of  revelation. 


FIRST   DOCTRINE. — ON   THE   CREATION   AND   PRESERVATION   OF   THE   WORLD. 

I.     ON   THE    CREATION. 

§50. 

1.    Creation  hy  the  Word. 

The  Mosaic  doctrine  of  creation  rests  on  the  two  fundamental  thoughts,  viz. : 
that  the  production  of  the  world  proceeded  from  the  Wprd  and  from  the^^^irit 
of  God. 

The  form  of  the  creation  of  the  world  is  the  speaking,  or  the  word,  of  God  ;  God 
says  that  the  things  shall  be,  and  they  are.  Gen.  i.  3,  6,  9,  etc.  This  ii.eans  that 
the  woi-ld  originated  through  a  conscious,  free  divine  act;  for  the  word  "said"  is 
simply  the  utterance  of  conscious  and  free  will.  Hence,  in  Ps.  xxxiii.  9,  HJV 
corresponds  to  1??H  ;  compare  ver.  6,  cxlviii.  5,  Isa.  xlviii.  13,  Ps.  cxxxv.  6.  This 
excludes,  first,  every  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  world  by  which  the  divine  being 
Himself  is  drawn  down  into  the  genesis  of  the  world  ;  and  secondly,  the  theory 
according  to  which  the  divine  productive  activity  was  conditioned  at  least  by 
something  existing  originally  outside  of  God,  and  thereby  limited.  In  the 
former  respect  the  Old  Testament  doctrine  stands  in  decided  opposition  to  the 
theories  of  emanation  in  the  oriental  cosmogonies,  in  which  the  creation  of  the 
world  is  made  subject  to  a  necessity  of  nature.  The  view  of  the  account  of  the 
creation,  in  Gen.  i.,  which  seeks  to  find  in  it  a  doctrine  of  emanation,  is  quite  un- 
tenable ;  namely,  that  originally  there  was  nothing  but  emptiness  and  voidness, 
that  is,  the  original  substance  swallowed  up  in  darkness,  and  that  God,  who  bore 


§   50.]  CREATIOX    BY   THE    WORD.  117 

in  Himself  the  germ  of  all  creation,  appears  first  in  ver.  3,  and  causes  it  to  pro- 
ceed from  Him  (1).  This  view  mistakes  the  connection  of  ver.  3  with  ver.  1,  and 
the  Old  Testament  meaning  of  5<"^2.  That  there  is  also  no  notion  of  the  nature  of 
emanation  in  Ps.  xc.  2,  in  case  ^YTli^l  as  second  person  refers  to  God  (which  is 
certainly  the  most  probable  explanation),  is  shown  by  the  use  of  the  word  in  Deut. 
xxxii.  18,  Prov.  xxv.  23.  The  view  of  the  divine  creation  as  generation  is  purely 
poetical  ;  comp.  also  Job  xxxviii.  28  f.  The  divine  creation  is  not  a  dreamy 
weaving  of  the  original  substance  in  which  it  produces  the  world  from  itself  of 
necessity,  but  a  conscious,  free  production  (2).  It  is  a  fairer  subject  of  discus- 
sion whether  Genesis,  chap,  i.,  does  not  assume  an  eternal  elementary  matter 
(afiopipog  vXt],  Wisd.  xi,  18)  independent  of  God,  and  so  teach  not  so  much  a  crea- 
tor of  the  world  as  a  shaper  of  the  world — a  Demiurge.  But  even,  according  to 
the  conception  of  vers.  1-3  now  beginning  to  find  currency,  "  In  the  beginning" 
(JT'K'X")  as  status  constr.),  "  when  God  created  heaven  and  earth  ;"  then  ver.  2  as 
parenthesis,  "  But  the  earth  was  a  waste  ;"  ver.  3,  "  God  said,  Let  there  be 
light" — the  passage  neither  teaches  that  the  creative  formation  of  the  cosmos 
followed  on  the  presupposition  of  a  chaos,  nor  does  it  say  anything  at  all  about 
this  chaos,  whether  it  proceeded  from  God  or  whether  it  was  eternal.  For  the 
rest,  the  construction  adopted  by  tliis  explanation  is  decidedly  contradictory  to 
the  thoroughly  simple  formation  of  the  sentences  in  the  first  chapter.  But  if 
ver.  1  is  understood,  according  to  another  view,  as  a  title,  a  summary  state- 
ment of  the  contents  of  the  chapter,  still  (as  Delitzsch  remarks)  the  ^H^)  injl  does 
not  appear  as  a  state  witliout  beginning  lying  behind  the  work  of  creation,  but 
the  X"i3  P'tyXl?  stands  at  the  head  of  all.  The  third  exposition  seems,  however, 
to  be  the  simplest,  that  ver.  1  is  not  meant  to  be  a  title  of  the  whole,  but  rather 
the  declaration  how  a  first  creation  of  heaven  and  earth  as  prima  materia  pre- 
ceded the  process  portrayed  from  the  second  verse  onwards  ;  compare  how  Job, 
xxxviii.  4-7,  supposes  a.  ])rius  preceding  the  creation  of  the  earth.  By  the  abso- 
lute ri'U/X"i5  the  divine  creation  is  fixed  as  an  ahsolute  beginning,  not  as  a  work- 
ing on  something  which  already  existed,  and  heaven  and  earth  is  wholly  subject- 
ed to  the  lapse  of  time,  which  God  transcends  ;  compare  Ps.  xc.  2,  cii.  20.  Tiie 
expression  ><13,  in  agreement  with  the  meaning  of  its  root,  which  is  ("^3,  ID,  com- 
pare ni3,  p1i3,  ;;13,  TIS,  ma,  tyia,  etc.)  "  to  cleave,  divide,  separate,"  might  cer- 
tainly favor  the  view  that  only  a  shaping  of  the  world  is  spoken  of  ;  but  the  coii- 
stant_use  of  X13  in  the  Old  Testament  is  against  this  (3),  the  word  being  always 
used  to  express  the  production  of  something  new  which  has  not  a  previous  exist- 
ence, as  in  Ps.  civ.  30  *<"J3  stands  parallel  to  li'^n,  to  make  new..  Thus  the  fact  is 
explained  that  *<"1^  never  appears  in  speaking  of  human  working,  and  is  never 
joined  with  the  accusative  of  the  matter  out  of  which  anything  is  created,  as  is  the 
case  with  "IV"  (compare  Gen.  i.  27  with  ii.  7),  with  Htyj,',  and  other  words  of  this 
class.  It  is  clear  from  this  discussion  that  Mosaism  places  itself  above  all  natural  re- 
ligions by  the  declaration, ' '  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth. ' ' 
Hence  in  Ps.  cxxi.  2  Jehovah  is  called  I'^^X]  U^rpp  nty;)  ;  'Isa.  xlv.  18  says,  niH' 
r\i^y]  y-JKH  ^t  ^"V^^^^  «^n  n:n^r\  ayi  ;  He  is  as  such  in  Gen.  xiv.  22,  D:dk/  Hjp 
Xl^]^  in  which  is  implied  both  preparer  and  possessor  of  heaven  and  earth  (for 
the  former  meaning  of  HJp,  compare  Deut.  xxxii.  6,  Ps.  cxxxix.  G).     The  idea  of 


118  THE    DOCTltlNKS    AND    ORDINANCES    OF   MOSAISM.  [g    51. 

rrcation  out  of  /lothing,  that  is,  that  God  flid  not  produce  the  world  out  of  any- 
thing outside  of  Himself,  is  in  accordance  willi  the  doctrine  of  Mosaism,  and  does 
not,  as  Ewald  strangely  supposes,  become  Old  Testament  doctrine  about  the  time 
of  Amos  (4).  How  later  reflection  laid  hold  of  the  simple  utterances  of  the 
record  of  creation,  and  carried  out  farther  the  thoughts  contained  in  them,  is 
esjiecially  shown  in  Ps.  civ.  (which  is  really  a  commentary  on  Gen.  i.). 

(1)  Johannsen  especially  takes  this  view  in  his  book,  71ie  Cosmogonies  of  the 
Indians  and  Ilebi'eics  discussed  by  comj)uring  the  Cosmogonies  of  Manu  and  Moses 
(in  German),  1833. 

(2)  So  far,  Ewald  has  handled  the  matter  very  well  in  his  essay,  "  Erklarung 
der  biblischen  Urgeschichte,"  in  his  Jahri.  der  bibl.  Wissensch.,  vol.  i.,  1848. 
He  says,  p.  80  :  "  The  free  creating  God  of  the  Old  Testament — how  different 
from  the  heathen  god,  who  has  much  ado  to  create,  and  at  length  to  free  himself 
completely  from  matter,  who  has  to  exert  himself  in  creating,  who  also  creates 
evil,  and  has  no  idea  that  the  creation,  as  a  thing  divine  and  true,  must  in  the 
last  issue  be  purely  good  !  The  Bible  God  does  not  first  approach,  as  it  were  by 
chance,  the  matter  already  there,  or  lazily  make  one  substance  merely  proceed 
from  another  ;  He  is  a  purely  original  active  Creator,  who  comprehends  every- 
thing strictly,  and  firmly  advances  forward." 

(3)  As  is  acknowledged  also  by  Gesenius  in  the  Thesaurus,  i.  p.  235  f.  Comp. 
also  Hitzig,  p.  57  f. 

(4)  Ewald  thinks,  I.e.  p.  85,  that  when  God  is  represented  as  having  formed 
the  mountains  (Amos  iv.  13  compared  with  Ps.  xc.  2),  the  old  chaos  is  hereby 
abolished,  and  the  activity  of  the  Creator  extended  as  far  as  possible.  Comp. 
also  Lehre  von  Oott,  p.  39  ff. 

§51. 

2.   The  Divine  Spirit  in  the  Creation. 

Since  the  world  is  jilaced  outside  of  God,  it  originated  and  subsists  only  by  the  life 
imparted  to  it  by  His  Spirit ;  thus  it  is  not  sevarated  from  Him,  although  distinct 
from  Him. 

Because  the  world  is  called  into  being  by  a  free  divine  act,  and  so  is  other 
than  God,  its  life  is  not  a  life  of  God  in  it,  but  yet  is  a  life  imparted  to  it  out  of 
the  divine  fulness  of  life.  This  lies  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  nil  (1).  The  life 
of  the  creature,  according  to  the  record  of  creation,  does  not  proceed  from  the 
chaotic  mass  ;  but  life  comes  from  the  God,  who  in  Ps.  xxxvi.  10  [A.  V.  v,  9]  is 
called  in  general  the  fountain  of  life  (D"n  "^ipO),  to  the  matter  created  by  Him. 
According  to  Gen.  i.  2,  the  Spirit  of  God  acts  on  the  jn'ima  materia,  on  the 
chaotic  earth;  it  hovers  (ri^DID)  over  the  earth.  The  meaning  ^' to  brood," 
which  is  here  given  to  "^n"]  by  many  expositors,  cannot  be  j^roved  from  Deut. 
xxxii.  11,  as  there  the  word  stands  rather  in  the  meaning  of  a  hovering  flight  ; 
but  it  appears  in  the  Syriac,  and  certainly  a  reference  to  the  mother's  life-giving 
activity  may  be  found  in  '^m,  which  is  connected  with  Dm  (2).  But  that  the 
Spirit  of  God,  as  imparting  life,  is  not  a  mere  physical  power,  and  is  not  sepa- 
rated from  the  word  as  an  expression  of  will,  but  really  acts  in  the  creative 
word,  and  that  therefore  is  itself  endued  with  the  power  of  life,  is  indicated 
by  the  expression  in  Ps.  xxxiii.  6,  where  the  Spirit  is  characterized  as  the  Spirit 
of  the  divine  mouth  ;  it  lies  also  in  Isa.  xl.  13,  that  the  Divine  Spirit  acting  in 


^  52.]  THE    PKESERVATION    OF   THE    WORLD.  119 

the  creation  is  a  consciously  working,  an  intelligent  power,  as,  according  to  Ps. 
cxxxix.  7,  the  divine  omnipresence  in  the  world  acts  by  means  of  the  all  penetrat- 
ing Spirit  of  God.  It  is  this  Divine  Spirit  (comp.  §  70)  which,  as  D'?n  riDli^J^ 
(the  breath  of  life)  is  breathed  into  man  by  a  special  act  (Gen.  ii.  7  ;  comp.  Job 
xxvii.  3),  and  from  which  all  creature-life  continually  proceeds  (Ps.  civ.  29  f. ; 
comp.  Job  xii.  10  )  (3).  The  doctrine  of  the  creative  word  guards  this  deriva- 
tion of  creature  life  from  the  divine  source  against  being  understood  as  a  doctiine 
of  emanation ;  as  also  do  the  expressions,  ''3"}p3  DnN~ni"i  l^f"',  Zech  xii.  1  ; 
'jrityj;  7N~rm,  job  xxxiii.  4.  Creature  life  proceeds  from  God,  but  it  does 
not  flow  from  God  ;  it  is  imparted  freely  by  God  to  the  creature  ;  comp.  Isa.  xlii. 
5  ("  He  who  giveth  the  HIT').  It  is  not  a  life  which  God  lives  in  the  creature, 
but  a  relatively  indcBendent  life  of  the  creature,  clcrived  from  God,  which  is 
taught  in  these  passages. 

(1)  On  this  subject  we  have  a  thorough  monograph  by  Kleinert,  "  Zur  alttest. 
Lehre  vom  Geiste  Gottes,"  Jahrb.  fiir  deutsche  Theol.  1867,  p.  3  if. 

(2)  The  fundamental  signification  of  ^ni  seems  to  be,  "to  be  soft;"  it  oc- 
curs in  Kal,  in  Jer.  xxiii.  9,  with  the  meaning  "to  be  lax"  ;  in  Piel  it  means, 
"  to  let  oneself  down  gently." 

(3)  Thus  orginate  the  "^^^'ijl  r\inn  (Num.  xvi.  22),  in  which,  however,  the  one 
Spirit  of  God  is  immanent  in  the  creatures.  Because  the  Old  Testament  does 
not  pause  at  the  multiplicity  of  the  mnil,  but  refers  them  back  to  the  One  Spirit, 
the  doctrine  of  the  Spirit  of  God  is,  as  Kleinert  {I.e.  p.  8  ff.)  says,  the  most 
powerful  vehicle  of  the  Old  Testament  monotheistic  view  of  the  world. 


II.     ON   THE    FRESEKYATION   OF   THE   WORLD. 

§52. 

The  preservation  of  the  world  is,  on  the  one  hand,  distinguished  in  the  Old 
Testament  from  its  creation  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  agency  of  God  in 
this  preservation  is  represented  as  a  continuous  creation. 

1.  The  preservation  is  distinguished  from  the  creation  of  the  world  even  in 
the  account  of  the  creation,  inasmuch  as,  according  to  Gen.  ii.  2,  the  production 
of  the  classes  of  creatures  has  a  conclusion,  which  is  formed  by  the  Sabbath  of 
creation  (1).  A  certain  independence  is  conferred  on  the  living  beings  called 
into  existence  by  the  creation,  by  the  power  of  reproduction,  Gen.  i.  11, 
xxii.  28  ;  the  continuance  of  the  system  of  the  world  is  pledged  by  the  covenant 
with  Noah,  Gen.  viii.  21.  On  this  world-covenant  rest  the  ]*"^.X1  D;0!2^  riipn,  Jer. 
xxxiii.  25,  compared  with  vers.  20  and  21,  3G,  to  which  "  ordinances  of  heaven 
and  earth"  the  course  of  the  world  is  bound,  Ps  cxlviii.  6  (2).  In  connection 
with  the  laws  by  which  the  duration  of  each  sphere  of  existence  is  ordained, 
compare  also  such  passages  as  Jer.  v.  22,  Ps.  civ.  9,  Job  xxxviii.  10,  xiv.  5. 

2.  The  continuance  of  this  system  of  the  world  is  established  at  each  moment 
by  the  divine  omnipotence  ;  the  relative  independence  of  the  creature  is  ever  an 
independence  lent  to  it.  The  preservation  of  the  world  rests  continually  on  the 
same  foundation  as  the  ereatio7i,  viz.,  on  God's  word  of  command,  which  He 
utters  continually,  or,  as  it  is  also  expressed,  sends  forth  (compare,   brsides  the 


120  THE    DOCtKINES   AND    ORDINANCES    OF    MOSAISM.  [§   52. 

passages  already  cited  above,  ■which  also  bear  on  this  point,  Ps.  cxlvii.  5, 
xxxiii.  9,  and  in  particular  Ps.  cxlvii.  15-18)  (3)  ;  and  it  rests  just  as  continually 
on  the  Divine  Spirit,  which  He  causes  ever  to  go  forth.  The  main  passage  for 
this  divine  communication  of  the  Spirit  which  continues  in  the  preservation  of 
the  world  is  again  Ps.  civ,  29  f.:  "Thou  takest  away  their  (the  creatures') 
spirit,  and  ihey  die,  and  turn  again  to  their  dust  ;  Thou  sendest  forth  Thy 
Spirit,  and  they  are  created  ;  and  Thou  renewest  the  form  of  the  earth."  This 
passage  shows  how  the  preservation  of  the  creature  can  be  looked  at  from  the^ 
point  of  view  of  a  creatio  continud ;  and  this  thought,  that  a  creative  working  of 
God  goes  on  in  the  preservation  of  creation,  is  in  general  imprinted  in  va- 
rious forms  on  the  Old  Testament  phraseology  ;  compare,  for  example,  Ex.  iv.  11, 
Isa.  xlii.  5.  The  Psalm  of  creation  also  (Ps.  civ.),  by  using  participles  in  ver.  3, 
characterizes  the  creative  agency  of  God  as  an  agency  which  continues  to  work 
in  the  preservation  of  the  world  (4). — On  this  side,  and  as  far  as  the  creature  is 
conditioned  and  supported  in  each  moment  of  its  existence  by  the  divine  activ- 
ity, it  is  in  itself  emptrj  and  'perishable^  ani  as  such  the  living  creature  is  called 
fleshy  '^^'l,  in  distinction  from  the  divine  spirit  of  life  ;  comp.  Gen.  vi.  3,  13, 
Isa.  xl.  6  ;  and  for  the  contrast  of  '^'^'^  and  H'^  in  general,  the  passage  Isa.  xxxi.  3. 
Even  the  heaven  and  earth,  although  their  duration  is  assured  to  them,  are  not 
eternal  in  the  sense  in  which  God  is  eternal,  but  are  subject  to  change  :  "  They 
shall  decay,  and  Thou  endurest  ;  they  all  wax  old  like  a  garment  ;  as  a  vesture 
Thou  changest  them,  and  they  are  changed.  But  Thou  art  the  same,  and  Thy 
years  have  no  end."     Ps.  cii.  27  f.  (5). 

(1)  Gen.  ii.  3  :  "And  God  completed  on  the  seventh  day  His  work  which  He 
had  made."  This  seemed  strange  to  the  Alexandrians,  because  man,  the  last 
creature,  was  called  into  being  on  the  sixth  day,  and  so  they  altered  it  boldly  to 
iv  T^  w^po-  TV  ^KTy.  But  in  doing  this  they  showed  that  they  did  not  understand 
what  is  said  in  regard  to  the  meaning  of  the  seventh  day.  It  is  the  seventh  day 
quifinem  imponit,  which  puts  as  it  were  the  conclusion  to  the  creation. 

(2)  Ps.  cxlviii.  6 :  "  He  set  them  firmly  to  eternity  and  eternity  ;  He  gave  laws, 
and  they  (the  heavenly  bodies)  do  not  overstep  them." 

(3)  In  Ps.  cxlvii.  15-18,  snow,  hoar  frost,  ice,  etc.,  are  referred  to  the  divine 
word  of  command  sent  forth  on  the  earth. 

(4)  Ex.  iv.  11  :  "  Who  made  man's  mouth  ?  or  who  maketh  dumb,  or  deaf,  or 
seeing,  or  blind  ?"  The  change  to  the  imperfect  0^^\  indicates  that  the  divine 
activity  is  a  continuous  one. — Isa.  xlii.  5  :  "  He  who  createth  the  heaven  (parti- 
ciple t^liS)  and  spreadeth  it  out,  who  extendeth  the  earth  and  its  offspring,  who 
giveth  breath  to  the  people  upon  it." — Ps.  civ.  2  :  "He  covereth  Himself  with 
light  as  a  garment,  and  spreadeth  out  the  heaven  as  a  covering." 

(5)  The  Old  Testament  Ilhokhma  gives  a  further  development  of  these  theo- 
locjumena.  There,  in  distinction  from  the  Pentateuch,  the  divine  wisdom  is  re- 
garded as  the  principle  of  the  formation  of  the  world.  The  later  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  are  here  referred  to  only  so  far  as  they  do  not  go  beyond  the  doc- 
trine of  Mosaism,  but  only  illustrate  it. 


§   63.]  DESIGN    OF    CEEATION,  AND    ITS    KEALIZATION.  12i 

SECOND    DOCTRINE. — THE   DIVINE    AIM    OF   THE   WORLD.       DIVINE   PROVIDENCE. 

§53. 

The  Design  of  Creation,  and  its  Realization  throvgJi  Providence. 

That  a  AWvae  plan  is  to  be  realized  in  the  world,  and  that  the  divine  creation 
is  therefore  a  teleological  act,  is  shown  in  the  account  of  the  creation,  partly  and  in 
general  in  the  progress  of  creation  according  to  a  definite  plan,  and  partly  in  par- 
ticular in  the  divine  sanction,  "  and  God  saw  that  it  was  good,"  following  each 
step  of  creation,  and  in  the  divine  blessing  pronounced  on  every  living  being. 
Each  class  of  beings  in  the  world  in  particular,  and  then.  Gen.  i.  31,  the  world  ns 
a  whole,  is  the  object  of  divine  approval,  because  corresponding  to  the  divine 
aim.  In  all  His  creating  God  approves  the  works  of  His  hands  ;  but  still  the 
creating  God  does  not  reach  the  goal  of  His  creation  until  He  has  set  over 
against  Him  His  image  in  man.  From  this  last  fact  it  is  plain  that  the  self-revcla- 
tion^l  God,  the  unveiling  of  His  being,  is  the  final  end  of  the  creation  of  the 
world  ;  or,  to  express  it  more  generally,  that  the  whole  world  serves  to  reveal  the 
divine  glory  ("f^^),  and  is  thereby  the  object  of  divine  joy,  Ps.  civ.  31.  The 
Old  Testament  view  of  nature  rests  on  this  fundamental  conception  ;  but  the 
Pentateuch,  of  course,  is  not  the  2:»lace  for  a  fuller  statement  of  this.  From  this 
point  of  view,  the  creature,  which  in  itself  is  nothing,  possesses  in  its  relation  to 
God  a  high  significance  as  the  object  of  His  imparted  goodness,  and  as  the  means 
for  the  revelation  of  His  glory  (comp.  Ps.  civ.  28,  cxlv.  9,  15  f.).  But  in  man- 
kind the  aim  of  the  [creation  of  the]  world,  the  glorifying  of  God,  was  disturbed 
by  sin ;  and  therefore  in  the  song  of  praise  on  the  glory  of  the  creation,  Ps.  civ., 
the  wish  is  expressed  in  ver.  35  :  "  May  sinners  have  an  end  on  the  earth,  and 
the  godless  be  no  more."  By  sin  the  sway  of  the  divine  spirit  of  life  is  repress- 
ed, Gen.  vi.  3  ;  and  through  man's  sin  the  cm'se  falls  on  the  other  creatures  of 
the  earth  that  are  set  in  dependence  on  him,  v.  29,  and  the  world  becomes  the 
object  of  divine  judgment.  But  in  spite  of  this,  the  continuance  of  the  terres- 
trial order  is  assured  in  the  world-covenant,  viii.  21,  ix.  11,  which  shows  that,  in 
spite  of  the  dominion  of  sin,  the  divine  aim  in  the  world  shall  come  to  its  reali- 
zation, as.  Num.  xiv.  21,  Jehovah  swears  in  the  midst  of  His  people's  revolt  : 
"  As  truly  as  I  live,  the  whole  earth  shall  be  filled  with  the  glory  of  Jehovah." 
The  choosing  of  the  race  through  which  God's  blessing  shall  come  on  all  races  of 
the  earth,  Gen.  xii.  3,  xviii.  18,  serves  this  divine  aim.  The  whole  Pentateuehal 
history  of  revelation,  as  exhibited  in  our  first  section,  is  nothing  but  the  activity 
of  that  divine  providence  which,  in  order  to  the  realization  of  the  divine  aim,  is 
at  once  directed  to  the  whole,  Deut.  xxxii.  8  (comp.  §  22  with  note  1),  and  at 
the  same  time  proves  itself  efficacious  in  the  direction  of  the  life  of  separate 
men,  and  in  the  guiding  of  all  circumstances,  especially  in  regard  to  all  human 
helplessness  (comp.  in  particular  passages  from  Genesis,  such  as  xxi.  17,  xxviii. 
15,  xxxii.  11,  xlv.  5-7,  1.  20)  (1).  There  was  no  special  occasion  in  the  Penta- 
teuch to  speak  of  the  operation  of  the  divine  providence  outside  the  sphere  of 
the  history  of  rcvehition.     But  it  is  clear  that  the  Old  Testament  teaches  a  provi- 


122  THE    DOCTRINES   AND    ORDINANCES    OF    MOSAISM.  [§    54. 

dence  which  embraces  everything,  siace  it  subjects  everything  to  the  divine 
direction  :  "  Thou  that  liearest  prayer,  all  flesh  cometh  to  Thee,"  Ps.  Ixv.  3  ;  and 
therefore  in  the  same  psahn,  ver.  C,  God  is  called  "the  confidence  of  all  the 
ends  of  the  earth,  and  of  the  sea  and  of  those  that  are  far  off. "  The  divine  provi- 
dence extends  also  to  the  animals.  They  all  wait  on  God,  that  He  may  give 
them  their  food  at  the  right  time,  Ps.  civ.  27  ;  the  lions  that  roar  after  their 
prey  seek  their  food  from  God,  ver.  21  ;  the  ravens  call  on  God,  Job  xxxviii.  41, 
Ps.  cxlvii.  9,  etc. — J^o  sphere  of  chance  exists  in  the  Old  Testament  ;  compare 
Ex.  xxi.  13  (2).  It  is  characteristic,  that  a  distinction  between  chance  (iT^.pO) 
and  divine  decree  occurs  in  the  Old  Testament  only  in  the  mouth  of  the  heathen 
Philistines,  1  Sam.  vi.  9.  Even  in  drawing  lots  there  rules  no  chance,  Prov. 
xvi.  33  (3);  and  so  in  Num.  xxvi.  55  f.,  Josh.  vii.  14  ff.,  xiv.  2,  1  Sam.  xiv.  41, 
the  lot  is  used  in  seeking  to  know  the  divine  will  (comp.  §  97). 

(1)  Compare  further  especially  the  Angelology. 

(2)  It  is  said  in  Ex.  xxi.  12,  "  He  who  strikes  a  man  that  he  die,  shall  die." 
Now  ver.  13  says  :  "  But  if  he  did  not  do  it  of  design,  but  God  permitted  it  to 
meet  his  hand  (iTy  n|K  D'Tl^Kn)."  Thus  even  what  men  call  accidental  death 
is  under  God's  direction.  Baumgarten  Crusius  says,  curiously  enough,  that  in 
this  place  the  word  Ood  means  no  more  than  circumstances. 

(3)  Prov.  xvi.  33  :  "  The  lot  is  cast  into  the  lap,  but  the  whole  disposal  there- 
of comes  from  Jehovah. ' ' 


§54. 

Relation  of  the  Divine  Causality  to  Moral  and  Physical  Evil. 

Moral  and  physical  evil  were  not  originally  in  the  world.  The  latter  was  pe- 
nally ordained  (Gen.  iii.  17  ff.)  after  the  former  had  entered  the  world  by  the  free 
act  of  man,  and  from  this  time  forward  both  form  an  element  of  the  divine  order 
of  the  world. 

1.  The  point  of  view  under  which  physical  evil  in  man's  life  is  placed  is 
thoroughly  ethical,  and  mainly  that  evil  in  punishment  for  sin,  or  divine  judgment 
(1).  In  the  Pentateuch  it  is  taught  that  the  evil  in  man's  life  is  also  a  means  of 
proving  him,  especially  of  proving  his  obedience  and  his  trust  in  God,  and  thus  a 
means  of  purifying  him  ;  and  that  even  merited  suffering  must  in  this  way  tend 
to  the  salvation  of  man.  These  thoughts  arc  expressed  in  the  providential  his- 
tory of  the  lives  of  Jacob  and  Joseph,  but  it  is  especially  the  providential  lead- 
ing of  the  people  in  the  wilderness,  which  in  the  Pentateuch  is  contemplated 
from  this  point  of  view  ;  compare,  as  chief  passage,  Deut.  viii.  3  f.  (3).  Accord- 
ing to  this,  the  privations  endured  in  the  wilderness  Avere  meant  to  be  a  school 
of  humility  and  faith,  that  the  people  might  learn  to  trust  to  the  power  of  the 
all-mighty  God.  To  the  same  purpose  we  read  in  ver.  16  of  the  same  chapter, 
that  this  leading  through  the  wilderness  served  "  to  humble  thee  and  to  try  thee, 
and  to  do  thee  good  in  the  end  ;"  compare  also  Judg.  ii.  22,  and  other  passages. 

3.  But  also,  even  in  moral  evil,  in  man's  sin,  the  divine  causality  operates,  and 
this  it  does  in  various  ways. — Man's  sin  cannot  thwart  the  divine  purpose  of  salva- 
tion ;  it  must  rather  serve  to  the  reali?,ation  thereof  (Gen,  1.  30,  comp.  xiv,  8)  (3). 


§  54.]  DIVINE    CAUSALITY.  123 

The  wickedness  of  some  must  serve  to  prove  and  purify  others,  that  it  may  be 
known  whether  they  are  strong  to  stand  against  it.  The  main  passage  is  Deut. 
xiii.  3,  where  it  is  said  that  God  even  permits  false  prophets  to  be  in  the  commu- 
nity, and  even  lets  their  signs  take  place,  although  they  seek  to  lead  the 
people  away  to  other  gods  :  "  For  Jehovah,  your  God,  tries  you,  to  know 
whether  ye  love  Jehovah,  your  God,  with  your  whole  heart  and  your  whole  soul." 
Nay,  in  order  to  punish  and  humble  a  man,  God  even  permits  another  to  wrong 
him  ;  this  David  acknowledges,  when  he  says,  on  being  cursed  by  Shimei  (2 
Sam.  xvi.  11),  "  Jehovah  has  said  unto  him.  Curse  David."  But  a  divine 
causality  works  also  in  {i.e.  in  regard  to)  the  sinner  himself,  and  for  various  ends  ; 
God  permits  one  v.  ho  habitually  walks  in  God's  ways  to  fall  into  sin,  in  order  to 
try  him,  to  reveal  to  him  a  hidden  curse  in  his  heart,  and  so  to  bring  to  its  issue  a 
merited  judgment,  and  thus  bring  God's  justice  to  light.  To  this  belong  cases 
like  that  in  2  Sam.  xxiv.  (the  numbering  of  the  people)  ;  compare  passages  such 
as  Ps.  li.  6,  2  Chron.  xxxii.  31.  On  another,  who  intentionally  cherishes  sin 
within  him,  and  wilfully  strives  against  God,  the  divine  causality  acts  by  giving 
him  up  to  sin,  so  that  sinning  becomes  necessary  to  this  man,  and  he  must  glorify 
God  by  the  judgment  which  he  has  incurred.  This  is  the  hardening  of  the  heart 
of  a  man,  so  often  spoken  of  in  the  Pentateuch  :  Ex.  iv.  21,  vii.  3  ;  Deut.  ii.  30, 
etc.  Pharaoh  and  the  Canaanite  tribes  are  especially  the  types  of  this  hardening. 
In  reference  to  such  examples,  it  is  said  in  Prov.  xvi.  4,  that  Jehovah  has  made 
all  things  for  His  own  ends  ;  also  the  evil-doer  for  the  day  of  calamity.  Ex.  ix. 
16  serves  especially  to  explain  this  passage.  God  could  at  once  have  annihilated 
Pharaoh  and  his  people  (ver.  15);  but  "I  have  set  thee  there,"  that  Pharaoh 
may  experience  Jehovah's  might,  and  that  His  name  may  be  glorified  in  the 
whole  earth.  With  this  compare  Ps.  ii.  4,  Isa.  xviii.  4.  But  the  presupposition 
of  all  hardening  of  the  heart  is,  that  God,  as  the  long-suffering  One,  D'aX  ^■;^it 
awaits  the  ripening  of  wickedness  ;  see  the  case  Gen.  xv.  IG.  The  expressions 
used  to  denote  hardening  of  tlie  heart  cannot  be  referred  to  a  simply  negative 
relation  to  wickedness  ;  but  still  man's  sin  is  not  removed  because  a  positive 
divine  agency  rules  in  his  hardening.  Man  can  indeed  do  nothing  that  would 
not  on  one  side  be  God's  work  (see  Lam.  iii.  37  f.),  and  yet  he  must  acknowledge 
sin  as  his  guilt  (ver.  39).  Isa.  xlv.  7 — a  passage  possibly  directed  against  the 
dualism  of  the  Persian  religion — shows  especially  how  the  monism  of  the  Old 
Testament  permitted  nothing  to  be  withdrawn  from  the  divine  causality  (4). 

(1)  Compare  the  particulars  on  this  further  on,  in  the  doctrine  of  death  and  in 
the  doctrine  of  retribution. 

(2)  Deut.  viii.  2  f.:  "Jehovah  thy  God  hath  led  thee  these  forty  years  in  the 
wilderness,  to  humble  thee  and  to  try  thee  (^HDj'y),  to  know  what  is  in  thy 
heart,  whether  thou  wilt  regard  His  commands  or  not.  He  humbled  thee,  and 
caused  thee  to  hunger,  and  fed  thee  with  manna,  to  cause  thee  to  know  that  man 
doth  not  live  by  bread  alone  ;  but  by  every  word  that  proceedeth  out  of  the 
mouth  of  the  Lord  doth  man  live."— In  this  lie  the  germs  of  the  thoughts  which 
form  the  theme  of  the  book  of  Job. 

(3)  Gen.  1.  20  :  "  Ye  meant  evil  against  me  ;  but  God  meant  it  for  good,  to  do 
as  it  is  this  day,  and  to  save  alive  this  people."  So  Joseph  (xlv.  8)  could  say  to 
his  brothers,  "  It  was  not  ye  who  sent  me  hither,  but  God." 

(4)  Lara,  iii,  37  f. :  "  Who  speaketh,  and  it  cometh  to  pass,  without  God  hav. 


124  TUB    DOCTKINES    AND    ORDINANCES    OF    MOSAISM.  [§    5G. 

ing  commanded  it  ?  Out  of  the  mouth  of  tlie  Most  High  should  not  evil  come  as 
well  as  good  ?  Ver.  39.  Why  doth  man  murmur  at  his  life  ?  let  every  one  mui- 
mur  over  his  sins." — Isa.  xlv.  7  :  "  Who  forms  light  and  creates  darkness, 
makes  peace  and  produces  evil  ;  I  Jehovah  do  all  this." — Here  we  have  only  to 
do  with  the  simple  lines  of  thought  ;  compare,  further  on,  the  doctrine  of  sin  (§  76), 
and  the  fuller  development  of  these  doctrines  in  the  later  parts  of  Old  Testament 
theology. 

THIRD    DOCTRINE. — OF   REVELATION. 

§55. 

Introductory  RemarTc  and  General  View. 

Inasmuch  as  the  whole  universe,  nature  and  history,  serve  a  divine  aim,  and 
the  manifestation  of  the  divine  glory  is  all  comprehensive  (comp.  §  53),  man,  as 
has  been  shown  in  the  Introduction  (§  6),  can  know  God  even  from  the  light  of 
nature.  But  we  have  now  to  do  with  revelation  in  a  more  limited  sense,  and  to 
answer  the  question,  How,  according  to  the  Old  Testament,  God  sets  Himself 
forth  to  man  by  testimony  which  he  gives  of  Himself  !  The  answer  to  this  falls 
into  the  following  parts  : — 

1.  Although  God,  in  the  transcendental  fulness  of  His  being,  is  incomprehensi- 
ble to  man.  He  is  nevertheless  pleased  to  enter  into  the  limits  of  the  sphere  of  the 
creature,  in  order  to  present  Himself  personally,  and  to  give  testimony  of  Him- 
self to  man.  This  side  of  the  revelation  of  the  Divine  Being  is  characterized  as  the 
divine  name,  the  divine  presence,  the  divine  fjlory  (Ti3|>). 

2.  The  forms  and  vehicles  in  which  this  divine  self-presentation  and  self-wit- 
ness reaches  man  from  without  are  the  voice,  the  Malahji  [A.  V.  Angel],  the 
Shelchina  iu  the  sanctuary,  and  miracle.  The  divine  self-witness  enters  the  heart 
of  man  by  means  of  the  Spirit.  The  latter  form  of  revelation  appears  first  after 
the  founding  of  the  theocracy  (not  in  Genesis);  it  unfolds  itself  in  proportion  as 
the  outward  theophany  disappears,  but  its  main  sphere  is  only  found  in  proph- 
ecy, and  therefore  this  subject  must  be  treated  but  briefly  here,  and  in  detail  in 
the  doctrine  of  prophecy  (1). 

(1)  It  is  quite  the  same  with  the  course  of  revelation  in  the  New  Testament,  as 
Stier  has  very  correctly  pointed  out.  Christophanies  continue  for  some  time  after 
the  ascension  of  our  Lord  ;  then  they  disappear  and  make  room  for  the  revelation 
of  the  Lord  in  the  inwardness  of  the  spirit. 

I.    ON   THE   REVELATION   OP    THE   DIVINE    BEING. 

§56. 

The  Divine  Name  (1). 

The  most  general  designation  of  the  Divine  Being  as  revealed,  is  the  Divine 
name,  which,  as  one  of  the  fundamental  conceptions  in  the  Old  Testament,  de- 
mands a  particular  examination.  It  is  true  in  general,  and  so  also  in  regard  to 
God,  that  every  name  presupposes  a  manifestation  of  what  is  to  be  named  ;  and 
on  the  other  hand,  what  closes  itself  against  knowledge  is,  as  such,  a  thing  that 


§   56.]  THE    DIVINE    NAME.  125 

cannot  be  named,  an  aicaTovSfiaGTov.  Man  can  imagine  names  for  false  gods,  but 
the  true  God  can  be  named  by  man  only  so  far  as  He  reveals  Himself  to  man 
and  discloses  to  him  His  nature.  The  name  of  God  is  first  nomen  editum,  and 
then  nomen  inditum  (3j.  Now,  God  does  not  name  Himself  to  man  after  the 
compass  of  His  perfections,  as  the  earlier  theology  was  wont  inexactly  to  define 
the  biblical  notion  of  the  divine  name,  but  according  to  the  relation  in  which 
He  has  placed  Himself  to  man,  according  to  the  attributes  by  which  He 
wishes  to  be  acknowledged,  known,  and  addressed  by  man,  in  the  communion 
into  which  He  has  entered  with  him.  In  short,  God  names  Himself,  not  ac- 
cording to  what  He  is  for  Himself,  but  to  what  He  is  for  man;  and  therefore 
every  self-presentation  of  God  in  the  world  is  expressed  by  a  corresponding 
name  of  God,  as  we  have  already  seen  (3).  But  the  biblical  notion  of  the 
divine  name  is  not  exhausted  by  this.  It  is  not  merely  the  title  which  God  bears 
in  virtue  of  the  relation  in  which  he  places  Himself  to  man  ;  but  the  expression 
"  name  of  God"  designates  at  the  same  time  the  whole  divine  self-presentation 
by  which  God  in  personal  presence  testifies  of  Himself — the  whole  side  of  the  divine^ 
Tiature  which  is  turned  toward  man.  3e  it  understood,  the  divine  name  is  not 
everywhere  present  where  there  is  a  working  of  divine  power  ;  but  everywhere 
where  the  God  of  revelation,  as  such,  gives  Himself  to  be  recognized  in  His  acts 
so  as  to  be  confessed  and  invoked.  Accordingly  the  name  of  God  is  certainly 
(as  Otto,  Dehalogische  Untersuchungen,  p.  81,  rightly  says)  not  the  ideal  existence 
of  God  in  the  consciousness  of  the  created  spirit,  but  an  objective  existence,  in- 
dependent  of  man's  subjectivity.  But  this  power  of  God  within  the  world,  and 
objective  to  man,  is  a  name  of  God  only  in  so  far  as  it  offers  itself  to  be  named 
by  man  and  comes  to  him  in  the  form  of  revelation,  that  is,  in  as  far  as  man  can 
know_ofJt.  Whether  he  will  know  of  it  is  another  matter  ;  for  man  may  deny 
and  profane  the  name  of  God,  the  divine  self-presentation  which  has  reached 
him.  Now  the  Israelite  who  knows  his  covenant  God  as  the  creator  and  sup- 
porter of  the  universe,  does  of  course  recognize  God's  name,  God's  self-presenta- 
tion in  the  whole  course  of  nature  ;  and  therefore  it  is  said  in  Ps.  viii.  2,  ' '  How 
glorious  is  thy  name  in  all  the  earth  !"  pin  in  the  second  hemistich  corresponds  to 
Dty).  Still  the  divine  name — and  this  is  its  exclusive  use  in  the  Pentateuch — 
conducts  us  specially  into  the  sphere  of  the  divine  kingdom  ;  it  designates  every 
m,anifestation  of  the  Divine  Being  which  attaches  to  places,  institutions,  and  facts, 
in  virtue  of  which  God  gives  His  people  a  direct  experience  of  Himself.  The 
following  are  the  principal  passages  : — Of  the  Malakh,  in  which  is  the  divine 
presence  (countenance),  it  is  said  in  other  words  that  the  divine  name  is  within 
him  (Ex.  xxiii.  21  ;  comp.  §  59,  8)  ;  the  dwelling  of  the  divine  glory  in  the  sanc- 
tuary (§  62),  by  which  God  gives  experience  of  His  presence  there,  is  called  a 
dwelling  of  His  name  in  this  place,  Deut.  xii.  5,  xi.  14,  23  f.,  1  Kings  viii.  29, 
compare  Jer.  iii.  17  (hence  the  service  there  is  a  TWTV  DC^^  ^y^,  Deut.  xviii.  5,  7). 
If,  as  has  been  done  by  many,  and  even  by  Winer,  who  is  usually  so  exact  (in  his 
Hebrew  Lexicon),  we  simply  explain  the  Old  Testament  expression,  that  God  puts 
His  name  in  a  place,  or  causes  it  to  dwell  there,  locum  eligere,  ubi  sacris  solennibus 
eolatur,  the  consequences  which  are  connected  with  the  dwelling  of  the  divine 
name  are  mistaken  for  the  thing  itself.  According  to  the  Old  Testament  view, 
there  is  in  such  cases  something  more  than  an  ideal  symbolical  presence  of  God  in 


126  THE    DOCTRINKS   AND    ORDINANCES    OF    MOSAISil.  [§    5G. 

the  sanctuary,  for  fearful  expressions  of  God's  presence  proceed  from  the  sanctuary, 
e.g.  Lev.  x.  3,  etc. — So,  then,  wherever  God  is  known  and  expeiienced  \xx  personal 
presence.,  there  His  name  is.  He  sends  forth  His  word,  but  where  His  name  is, 
there  He  presents  Himself  ;  and  therefore  the  plirase,  "  Thy  name  is  called  over 
us,"  in  Jer.  xiv.  9,  is  only  a  further  explanation  of  the  declaration,  "  Thou  art  in  the 
midst  of  us" (4). — The  reality  which  this  gives  to  the  name  of  God  may  be  made  more 
distinct  by  a  few  further  examples.  When  Isaiah  (chap.  xxx.  27)  sees  the  Lord  ap- 
proach in  judgment,  he  says  :  "  See,  Jehovah's  name  cometh  from  afar,  His  wrath 
l)urning,'"  etc.  (5).  The  Psalmist  prays  (Ps.  liv.  3)  :  ''  Help  me  by  Thy  name;'''' 
and  this  corresponds  to  "  by  Thy  strength"  ('■]ri"])13Jl3)  ;  compare  Jer.  x.  6  :  "  Thy 
name  is  great  in  power"  (n"J043)  (as  in  1  Kings  viii.  42  the  strong  hand  and  the 
outstretched  arm  correspond  to  the  great  name).  Hence  it  is  said  in  Prov.  xviii. 
10  :  "  The  name  of  Jehovah  is  a  strong  tower  ;  the  righteous  runneth  into  it,  and 
is  safe"  (6). 

(1)  Compare  my  article,  "Name,  biblische  Bedeutung  desselben,"  in  Herzog's 
Real-Encyhlop.  x.  p.  193  ff. 

(3)  Therefore  DT' '.^,  which  in  its  original  meaning  designates  divinity  in  general, 
looked  at  apart  from  God's  historical  witness  to  Himself,  is  not  regarded  in  the 
Old  Testament  as  properly  a  name  of  God  (comp.  §  41),  [also  Cremer,  New 
Testame?it  Lexicon]. 

(3)  The  God  who  causes  the  forsaken  Hagar  to  know  by  experience  that  His 
all-seeing  eye  overlooks  no  helpless  one,  receives  immediately  the  name,  the  Ood 
of  vision.!  Gen.  xvi.  13  (comp.  §  43  with  note  1  ).  The  characteristic  of  the  patri- 
archal stage  of  revelation  appears  in  the  name  of  God,  El-shaddai,  Gen.  xvii.  1 
(comp.  §  37),  which  name  corresponds  to  the  change  of  the  name  Abram  to 
Abraham,  xvii.  5  ;  Shaddai  [almighty]  there  designating  God  as  Him  who  sub- 
jects nature  to  the  purpose  of  His  revelation  by  His  powerful  sway,  mainly  in 
reference  to  the  fact  that  a  numerous  offspring  was  to  be  given  to  the  childless 
Abraham.  In  the  same  way,  God's  relation  to  the  patriarchs  is  presented  in  the 
name,  '■^the  Ood  of  Abraham.,  Isaac,  and  Jacoh.,''''  Ex.  iii.  6  (comp.  §  25).  The 
further  stage  of  the  revelation  which  began  with  the  redemption  of  Israel  from 
Egypt  is  distinctly  indicated  in  the  disclosure  of  the  meaning  of  the  name  Jehovah, 
Ex.  iii.  15  ff.,  vi.  2  ff.  (comp.  §  40).  The  name  li'"np  apijears  with  the  founding 
of  the  theocracy  (comp.  §  44).  When  God  reveals  Himself  in  His  grace,  mercy, 
and  long -suffer' ing  after  the  first  breach  of  the  covenant,  this  is  again  connected 
with  a  manifestation  of  the  corresponding  name,  Ex.  xxxiv.  6  (comp.  §  29).  In 
t\\(i  New  Testament  stage,  when  the  only-begotten  Son,  has  revealed  God's  name  to 
man  (John  xvii.  6),  it  is  God's  good  pleasure  to  be  named  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  or,  to  express  universally  the  now  completed  relation  of  salvation,  by  the 
name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  (Matt,  xxviii.  19). 

(4)  For  this  reason,  in  Dent,  xxviii.  10  the  fact  that  God  raises  Israel  to  be  a 
people  holy  to  Him,  and  standing  in  His  revealing  fellowship,  is  expressed  by  say- 
ing that  God's  name  is  named  on  the  people.  God's  name  is  great  and  glorious 
in  the  redemption  of  His  people  and  the  institution  of  the  covenant,  Ps.  cxi.  9 
(note  also  the  correlation  of  notions  in  Isa.  xliii.  7).  Israel  walks  in  the  name  of 
his  God  in  an  objective  sense,  in  so  far  as  he  experiences  the  effective  power  of  the 
God  who  manifests  Himself  in  his  midst  (hence,  Zech.  x.  12,  nin'3  D'J^'jaj]  pre- 
cedes Dvnri'  lDt^2)  ;  and  in  a  subjective  sense,  in  so  far  as  he  acknowledges  his 
God  in  accordance  with  this  in  word  and  conduct,  and  fears  His  name  in  fulfilling 
iiis  law,  Deut.  xxviii.  58.  Mic.  iv.  5,  a  passage  frequently  misunderstood,  is  to  be 
interpreted  conformably.  The  prophecy  that  in  fviture  time  all  nations  shall  go 
in  ]jilgrimage  to  Zion,  there  to  receive  the  law,  has  its  basis  in  this,  that  Israel 
walks  in  the  name  of  Jehovah,  that  is,  stands  in  communion  with  the  true  God, 


§    57.J       THE    DIVINE    COUNTENANCE    AND   THE    DIVINE    GLORY.  127 

who  manifests  Himself  among  His  people  ;  while  the  other  nations  (although 
they  also  stand  under  the  power  of  the  true  God,  yet  as  long  as  they  do  not 
acknowledge  it  as  the  power  of  this  God)  walk  in  the  name  of  their  gods,  and  as  be- 
longing to  them. — The  aim  of  the  divine  kingdom  is,  that  the  name  of  the  true  God 
shall  be  named  also  upon  the  remnant  of  the  heathen  people  who  are  rescued  from 
judgment,  Amos  ix.  13  (eomp.  Mai.  i.  11)  :  that  is,  that  they  shall  be  brought 
into  the  communion  of  His  revelation,  while  He  assumes  toward  them  the  relation 
of  a  king,  Zech.  xiv.  9,  the  consequence  of  which  shall  be  that  they  on  their  side 
shall  acknowledge  and  call  on  the  name  of  Jehovah  (Zeph.  iii.  9). 

(5)  With  this  compare  Isa.  xxvi.  8  :  "  We  aw^ait  Thee  in  the  path  of  Thy 
judgments  ;  the  desire  of  our  soul  is  after  Thy  name  and  Thy  remembrance." 

(6)  Compare  Ps.  xx.  2,  xliv.  6  :  "  Through  Thy  name  we  tread  down  our  adver- 
saries," cxxiv.  8,  etc.  When  God  causes  His  people  to  experience  His  powerful 
presence  by  miracles,  it  is  said,  "Thy  name  is  near,"  Ps.  Ixxv.  2;  where 
Hengstenberg  seeks  incorrectly  tp  give  the  expression  a  subjective  turn.  God 
gives  honor  to  His  name,  Ps.  cxv.  1,  and  sanctifies  it,  etc.,  Avhen  He  proves  Himself 
to  be  the  true  God  by  demonstrations  of  His  power  and  glory  ;  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  anything  from  which  it  might  appear  as  if  the  miglit  and  glory  of  the  God 
of  Israel  were  naught— for  example,  the  permanent  rejection  of  His  people, — ■ 
would  be  a  desecration  of  His  name  in  an  objective  sense,  Ezek.  xx.  14,  22.  The 
divine  name  is  subjectively  hallowed  by  man  when  he  gives  due  acknowledgment 
of  the  self-witness  and  self-presentation  of  God  in  the  world.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  divine  name  is  desecrated  by  men  when  they  treat  the  divine  self-witness,  and 
that  with  which  it  is  connected, — in  short,  what  is  most  real, — as  a  thing  of 
naught  and  powerless,  which  man  may  neglect  without  punishment,  in  words  (Ex, 
XX.  7),  or  in  deeds,  (comp.  the  D2'  t^sn,  Prov.  xxx.  9).-— God  guides  the  pious  for 
His  name's  sake,  Ps.  xxiii.  3,  xxxi.  4  ;  He  lends  assistance  for  His  name's  sake, 
Ps.  cix.  21,  cxliii.  4  ;  11  ;  He  remits  guilt  for  His  name's  sake,  Ps.  xxv.  11,  com- 
pare ciii.  1  ff.  ;  inasmuch  as  He  cannot  be  at  variance  with  what  He  has  represented 
and  manifested  Himself  to  be.  The  various  other  connections  in  which  "  in  the 
name  of  God"  occurs,  are  explained  by  what  has  been  already  discussed.  In  an 
objective  sense,  the  expression  designates,  in  God's  strength  and  authority,  and 
as  His  representative  (comp.  Mic.  v.  3,  where  "  in  the  majesty  of  the  name  of 
Jehovah"  corresponds  to  mn"'  lj^3,  as  Acts  iv.  7  h  nola  dwd/isi  stands  beside  kv 
Tvoiu  bvofxarc,  Deut.  xviii.  18  ff.).  To  this,  then,  corresponds  the  subjective  mean- 
ing, the  naming  and  acknowledging  of  God  as  that  power  in  which  one  speaks 
and  acts,  for  whose  cause  one  suffers,  etc. 

§57. 
2.    The  Divine  Countenance  and  the  Divine  Glory. 

That  by  which  God  is  jjresent  among  His  people  is  further  styled  the  divine 
countenance  [A.  V.  presence]  (Q'.J?).  Ex.  xxxiii.  14  ff.  is  the  main  passage.  Je- 
hovah had  declared,  in  ver.  2  f.  of  this  chapter,  that  He  Himself  would  no  more 
go  in  the  midst  of  the  stiffnecked  people,  but  would  cause  them  to  be  guided  by 
an  angel  (namely,  a  subordinate  angel).  Afterwards  He  permits  Himself  to  be 
entreated  by  Moses,  and  says,  OT.  'JS,  "my  countenance  shall  go."  This  certainly 
means.  He  Himself  will  go  (comp.  xxxiv.  9).  Still  the  divine  countenance  is  not 
identical  with  the  divine  essence  ;  for  while  (according  to  the  passages  cited  in 
§  46)  the  latter  must  be  conceived  as  without  form  and  exempt  from  every  limi- 
tation of  space,  it  follows  from  xxxiii.  20  that  the  divine  □"'JS  is  in  itself  visible, 
only  that  a  human  eye  is  not  able  to  bear  the  sight  (compare  Gen.  xxxii.  31). 
The  contradiction,  that  the  divine  countenance  is  not  visible  to  man,  while  3'et 


128  THE    DOCTKINES    AND    OKDINANCES    OF    MOSAISM.  [§    58 

we  read  in  the  same  chapter  (Ex.  xxxiii.  11)  of  Moses  speaking  with  God  face  to 
face  (D'J3-b^  ^■^^),  'ind  in  Num.  xii.  8  mouth  to  mouth  rn?-'7X  H^),  and  also  in 
the  latter  passage  that  Moses  saw  Jehovah's  form  (Hin;  rijori), — this  contradic- 
tion is  solved  by  understanding  "  countenance  "  in  the  latter  passage  in  a  merely 
relative  sense,  as  appears  from  the  connection  (comjmre  also  Num.  xiv,  14,  "  eye 
to  eye").    Moses  receives  a  view  of  the  reflex  of  the  divine  form  (Ex.  xxxiii.  23). 

From  all  this  it  is  clear  that  by  the  face  of  God  is  meant,  in  distinction  from  His 
transcendent  and  infinite  nature.  His  coming  dorcn  into  the  sphere  of  the  created, 
whereby  He  can  te  hrought  within  the  irnmediate  l-noirMlrie  of  man.  Here  belongs, 
further,  Deut.  iv,  37,  where  it  is  said  that  Jehovah  brought^ael  out  of  Egypt  by 
His  countenance  C'JI'r'),  [i.  e.  by  the  might  of  his  presence  :  A.  V.  incorrectly 
"in  his  sight." — D].  Hence  also  the  Malalch  by  whom  Jehovah  redeems  His 
people — the  same  in  whom,  as  we  have  already  observed,  tl;e  divine  name  was — 
is  called,  Isa.  Ixiii.  9,  the  angel  of  the  divine  countenance  ;  compare  how,  in  Gen. 
xxxii.  30  f.,  the  divine  countenance  stands  for  the  manifestation  of  God,  Hos.  xii. 
4,  which  Hosea,  ver.  5,  refers  to  the  Malakh  [angel].  Only  from  this,  too,  is  the 
full  meaning  of  the  high  priest's  blessing  rightly  understood,  Num.  vi.  25  f. : 
"Jehovah  cause  His  face  to  shine  upon  thee,  and  be  gracious  to  thee  ;  Jehovah 
lift  up  His  countenance  on  thee,  and  give  thee  j^eace, "  which  is  characterized  in 
ver.  27  as  the  laying  of  God's  name  on  Israel.  Here,  too,  we  have  not  something 
merely  symbolical,  but  a  definite  exiierience  of  God's  gracious  presence  and  aid 
proceeding  from  the  real  dwelling  of  God  in  Israel ;  as,  conversely,  the  manifes- 
tation of  Jehovah's  countenance  brings  destruction  on  His  enemies  (Ps.  xxi.  10), 
and  the  hiding  of  the  divine  countenance  shows  a  withdrawal  of  God's  gracious 
presence.  On  the  other  hand,  Ps.  cxxxix.  7,  "  Where  shall  I  flee  from  Thy  face  ?" 
corresponding  to  "Where  shall  I  go  from  Thy  Spirit  ?"  goes  beyond  the  theo- 
cratic relation.  Here  the  expression  "the  divine  countenance"  clearly  teaches 
that  God's  omnipresence,  which  by  means  of  the  Spirit  Interpenetrates  the  uni- 
verse, is  everywhere  a  personal  presence  of  God. 

Finally,  for  name  and  countenance  the  indefinite  expression,  glory  (mri''  "Tl^S)  is 
used  ;  so  Ex.  xxxiii.  17  £f.,  where  it  alternates  with  D'J3.  In  the  same  way,  it  is 
mri]  1133  through  which  Jehovah  appears  to  His  people  on  Mount  Sinai,  under 
covert  of  the  cloud  (Ex.  xxiv.  IG),  and  which  is  present  in  the  holy  tabernacle 
(xl.  34).  In  this  respect  1  Kings  viii.  is  especially  clear  :  earth  and  the  heaven 
of  heavens  cannot  contain  God  (ver.  27)  ;  but  His  glory  (ver.  11),  for  which 
His  name  is  put  in  ver.  29,  is  present  in  the  sanctuary. 

II.     THE   FOKMS    OP   EEVELATION. 

§58. 

The  Divine  Voice. 

As  divine  speech  is  in  general  tlie  form  of  divine  working  in  the  world,  so  tlie 
word  is  the  most  general  form  of  divine  revelation.  Compare,  for  example,  how 
in  Ps.  cxlvii.  18  f.  the  word  of  God  acting  in  nature,  and  the  divine  word  of  reve- 
lation are  placed  over  against  one  another.  Hence  the  formula,  "the  word  of 
Jehovah  came  to,"  or  similar  forms,  frequently  recur   from  Gen.  xv.  1  onward. 


§   59.]  THE   DOCTRtKE   OF  THE   ANGEL   OP  THE   LORD,  ETC.  129 

Now,  so  far  as  this  word  of  CTod  comes  internally  to  the  organs  of  revelation,  it 
coincides  with  the  revelation  which  is  effected  by  the  Spirit  (compare  §  65).  But 
the  Old  Testament  specifies  among  its  mediums  of  revelation  also  the  outwardly 
audible  wice  ( '^p)  ;  indeed,  in  Deut.  iv.  12,  special  weight  is  laid  upon  this  form 
of  revelation  :  "  Jehovah  spoke  to  you  out  of  the  fire  ;  ye  heard  (D'"'?"7  •'^p)  a 
sound  of  words,  but  ye  saw  no  form,  /1p  'rivll  "  [except  a  voice],  in  which  7ip  is 
placed  in  opposition  to  HJIori,  Thus  also,  1  Sam.  iii.  4,  1  Kings  xix.  11  ff.,  the 
voice  is  the  material  substratum  of  the  theophany. 

With  this  was  connected  in  the  later  Jewish  theology  the  doctrine  of  the  Bath- 
lol^  or  revelation  by  means  of  heavenly  voices,  such  as  Elijah  received, — a  form  of 
revelation  which  was  supposed  to  continue  in  the  time  of  the  second  temple,  after 
prophecy  had  grown  dumb.  The  expression  "daughter of  the  voice"  means  that 
the  divine  voice  itself  is  not  heard,  but  only  its  working,  since  either  /ip  was 
understood  as  a  divine  attribute,  and  /lp  r\3  as  its  manifestation  (as  was  done  by 
the  Cabbalists)  ;  or,  according  to  the  common  acceptation,  7lp  designates  the 
heavenly  voice  itself,  and  /lp  r>3  its  echo.  This  form  of  revelation  appears  in 
the  New  Testament  in  Matt.  iii.  17,  xvii.  5,  John  xii.  38  ;  and  very  frequently  in 
the  Apocalypse. 

§59. 

The  Doctrine  of  the  Angel  of  the  Lord,  of  the  Covenant,  of  the  Countenance  (1).     The 
Exegetical  State  of  the  Case. 

In  a  more  concrete  form  God  manifests  Himself  in  the  '\^'0,  generally  called 
niH'  IJkSp  (comp.  §  41),  or  D'n^?<n  V^^.^,  or  simply  'il^jV'Sn  ;  in  the  Elohistic  sec- 
tion (Gen.  xxi.  17)  Q^n'^X  '^xSo,  (and  in  1  Sam.  xxix.  9,  in  the  mouth  of  the 
Philistine  Achish).  This  Malakh  is  in  part  identified  with  Jehovah,  and  again  in 
part  distinguished  from  Him.  It  is  above  all  things  necessary,  on  this  important 
and  difficult  point,  to  examine  carefully  the  principal  passages  (2). 

1.  Gen.  xvi.  7  ff.,  the  ^xSrD  appears  to  Hagar,  and  says  (ver.  10)  :  "I  will multij^ly 
thy  seed."  Now  in  ver.  11  Jehovah  is  spoken  of  in  the  third  person  ;  but  we  read 
in  ver.  13  that  Jehovah  spoke  to  Hagar,  and  Hagar  named  Him  that  appeared  to 
her  "the  God  of  seeing."  With  this  compare  how  (xxi.  17)  DTiV^  and  ^XvO 
O'll 7X  are  used_alternately. 

2.  Among  the  three  men  who  appeared  to  Abraham  (chap,  xviii.),  one  is  ex- 
pressly distinguished  us  Jehovah  (vers.  20,  26,  etc.)  from  the  two  others,  who  are 
called  D'^xSo,  and  are  said  (xix.  13)  to  be  sent  by  Jehovah.  But  the  intercourse 
between  these  two  and  Lot  (xix.  18  ff.)  is  carried  on,  and  the  account  runs,  ex- 
actly as  if  Jehovah  Himself  stood  there.  Now  it  may  be  disputed,  whether  Je- 
hovah is  also  represented  by  these  two  angels,  or  whether  Jehovah  is  to  be  sup- 
posed to  have  rejoined  them  after  Lot  has  been  led  out  of  the  town  (ver.  18), 
even  though  it  is  not  expressly  mentioned.  The  latter  conception  appears  to  me 
(in  opposition  to  Delitzsch,  Keil,  and  others)  to  be  the  right  one  (so  Stier). 

3.  Gen.  xxii.  12,  the  mrr  ^xSd  calls  to  Abraham  from  heaven,  as  if  he  were  God 
Himself,  "  Now  I  know,"  etc.,  and  Abraham  himself  receives  (ver.  14)  the  man- 
ifestation as  a  manifestation  of  Jehovah  ;  on  the  contrary,  ver.  15  ff.  may  again  be 


130  THE   DOCTKiNtS   AND    OKDlXANCES   OF   MOSAISM.  [§   59. 

understood  :is  if  tlie  Malakh  were  distinguished  from  Jehovah  :   "I  swear  by  my 
self,  saith  Jehovah." 

4.  Gep.  xxiv.  7,  comp.  ver.  40,  Abram  says  to  his  servant,  "Jehovah,  the  God 
of  heaven,  .  .  send  His  angel  before  thee."  Thus  the  angel  of  Jehovah — for  it 
is  clear  that  a  particular  one  is  meant — is  distinguished  from  Jehovah,  as  in  the 
theophany  at  Bethel  (Gen.  xxviii.  12  f.)  the  D'DnSd  are  distinguished  from  Jeho- 
vah. But  (xxxi.  13-13)  the  Malakh  that  appeared  to  Jacob  says,  "  I  am  the  God 
of  Bethel  ;"  while,  on  the  other  side  (xxxv.  7),  the  plural  OTi'^^n  ib^J  may  be  so 
understood  that  the  angels  tliat  appeared  belong  to  the  tlieofliany . 

5.  The  apparition  at  night  with  which  Jacob  jvi'estles  (chap,  xxxii.)  is  desig- 
nated (vers.  29-31)  as  an  appearance  of  God  (D'n'7N),  or  more  exactly,  as  the 
appearing  of  the  divine  countenance  (D'JS)  ;  Hosea  (chap.  xii.  4)  treats  this  in 
like  manner  as  a  manifestation  of  God,  but  immediately  (ver.  5)  substitutes  ^«"7D 
forD^nSx. 

6.  Gen,  xlviii.  15  f.  is  especially  remarkable.  Jacob  blesses  his  sons  with  the 
words  :  "The  God  before  whom  my  fathers  Abraham  and  Isaac  walked,  the  God 
who  has  been  my  shepherd  till  this  day,  the  Malakh  who  delivered  me  from  every 
evil,  let  Him  bless  these  lads."  j^ 

7.  In  Ex.  iii.  2  the  Hiri'  '^H7D  appears  to  Moses  in  the  flarne,  in  ver.  4  Jehovah 
and  Elohim  are  substituted  for  him,  and  now  in  ver.  G  He  says  :  "  I  am  the  God  of 
thy  father  ;"  and  the  whole  of  the  following  relation  intentionally  conveys  the 
impression  of  converse  between  Jehovah  and  Moses. 

8.  In  Ex.  xiii.  21  it  is  said  :  "  Jehovah  went  beforejarael;"  on  the  contrary, 
in  xiv.  19  we  read  that  it  was  the  Malakh  ;  compare  how  it  is  said  in  Num.  xx. 
16,  Jehovah  sent  an  angel  to  lead  Israel  out  of  Egypt.  But  in  Ex.  xiv.  24  ff. 
the  leader  is  again  called  Jehovah,  and  in  xxiii.  20  fi.  God  promises  to  bring  the 
people  into  the  promised  land  by  His  Malakh  ;  the  people  were  to  obey  the 
Malakh,  for  in  him  is  Jehovah's  name.  In  numerous  other  passages  it  is  dis- 
tinctly said,  that  Jehovah  Himself  is  in  the  midst  of  His  people. 

9.  But  the  section  Ex.  xxxii.  f.  is  of  especial  importance.  After  the  first  breach 
of  the  covenant,  Jehovah  will  Himself  no  longer  go  in  the  midst  of  the  people 
(xxxiii.  3),  He  will  send  a  Malakh  before  them  (ver.  2),  and  He  calls  him  (xxxiii. 
34)  also  'P^?^  [Malahhi,  my  angel].  Thereafter  He  yields  to  the  entreaties  of  Moses 
to  allow  His  countenance  (O'P?)  to  go  with  them  (xxxiii.  14  f.).  This  counte- 
nance must  again  have  appeared  in  the  form  of  an  angel  ;  for  it  is  said  in  Isa.  Ixiii. 
9,  in  reference  to  the  leading  through  the  wilderness,  D;^'t^''in  VJS  '^^I'Q  [the 
angel  of  his  presence  saved  them].  Also  Deuteronomy,  which  never  has  the 
Malakh  (which  makes  a  remarkable  difference  between  this  book  and  the  pre- 
ceding ones),  but  always  represents  Jehovah  himself  as  acting,  says  (iv.  37)  that  God 
led  Israel  out  of  Egypt  by  his  countenance.  From  this  it  is  clear  that  there  are 
two  kinds  of  angels  of  Jehovah  :  one  within  whom  is  the  name  Jehovah,  who  is 
the  bearer  of  His  countenance,  and  another  with  whom  this  is  not  the  case. 

10.  Josh.  V,  14  f.,  the  Prince  of  the  army  of  Jehovah  appears  to  Joshua.  This 
is  told  as  if  he  were  different  from  Jehovah.  But  in  ver.  15  he  identifies  Himself 
manifestly  with  the  Malakh  that  appeared  to  Moses  in  Ex.  iii.,  and  in  Josh.  vi.  2 
he  again  appears  as  Jehovah  himself,  who  gives  Jericho  into  Joshua's  hand. 


§    60.  J  THE    DOCTlU>[E    OP   THE    ANGEL    OF   THE    LOKl),    ETC.  131 

The  following  pitssages  from  t\\G  hite?-  7>ooksoi  the  Old  Tcstamtnt  come  espe- 
cially into  consideration,  as  analogous  to  the  passages  in  the  Pentateuch  :— 

11.  Judg.  ii.  1-5,  where  it  is  probable  that  a  prophet  is  not  to  be  understood 
by  1?/?  (as  Bertheau,  for  example,  maintains).  The  Malakh  says:  "I  brought 
you  up  out  of  Egypt,"  etc.  ;  v.  23  :  "  Curse  Meroz,  saith  the  angel  of  Jehovah  ;" 
vi.  11  ff.,  the  Malakh  that  appeared  to  Gideon,  who  (ver.  14)  quite  passes  over 
into  Jehovah,  and  even  accepts  an  offering,  though  Gideon  (ver.  22)  in  address- 
ing Jehovah  seems  in  a  remarkable  manner  to  distinguish  the  Malakh  from  Him, 
and  afterward  when  the  Malakh  has  disappeared,  still  (ver.  23)  receives  Jehovah's 
word. 

12.  Similarly  in  Zechariah  the  angel  of  the  Lord  is  distinguished  on  the  one 
hand  from  Jehovah  :  he  appears  (i.  13)  interceding  for  Israel  before  Jehovah. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  he  takes  the  place  of  Jehovah  himself  in  chap,  iii.,  where, 
however,  the  angel  speaks  again  of  Jehovah  in  the  third  person. 

(1)  The  doctrine  of  the  angel  of  tlie  Lord  is  one  of  the  most  important  and  difficult 
points  in  the  Old  Testament,  on  which,  even  as  early  as  the  Church  Fathers,  there 
were  various  views,  and  about  which,  to  this  day,  no  agreement  has  been  reached. 
The  literature  is  enormously  rich.  Ode's  book,  Commentarlus  de  Angelis, 
1739,  still  deserves  to  be  mentioned  on  account  of  its  copiousness.  The  following 
are  the  most  important  treatises  within  the  last  fifty  years  : — a  Programme  by  Steu- 
del,  Veterlsne  testnmenti  libris  insit  notio  manifesti  nh  occidto  distinguendi  miminiSy 
Tiib.  1830  (one  of  his  best  writings)  ;  Hengstenberg,  Christology  of  the  0.  T. 
Kurtz  formerly  defended  Hengstenberg's  view,  "  Der  Engel  des  Herrn,"  in  Tho- 
luck's  Liter.  Ameiger,  1846,  Nos.  11-14,  but  treats  the  matter  differently  in  his 
History  of  the  Old  Covenant.  Compare  further,  Trip,  Die  Theo])hanien  in  den  Oes- 
chichtabi'tchern  des  A.  T.,  Leiden,  1858  ;  in  tlie  same  year  a  Programme  by  Kahnis, 
De  angelo  Domini  diatribe  ;  Barth,  der  Engel  des  Bundes,  Sendschreihen  an  Schelling, 
1845  ;  compare  Schelling's  answer  in  Schelling's  Leben  in  Briefen,  iii.  p.  189  if.— - 
Schultz  p.  564  ff.  has  discussed  the  doctrine  of  the  angel  of  the  Lord  more  thor- 
oughly than  in  his  first  edition  :  [see  also  Ewald,  Hitzig,  and  Kiibel,  art.  "  Engel  " 
in  Herzog,  iv.  p.  222] . 

(2)  The  grouping  of  the  passages  by  numbers  is  to  facilitate  reference  in  the 
following  section. 

§60. 

Continuation  :   The  Different  Views. 

The  question  is  now,  Which  view  of  the  Mal'akh  gives  the  most  satisfactory 
explanation  of  these  apparently  contradictory  passages  ?  The  following  main 
views  are  to  be  distinguished  : 

1.  The  first  view  is  that  taken  in  the  early  ages  of  the  church  by  Augustine, 
Jerome,  and  Gregory  the  Great  ;  in  our  day.  by  Steudel  and  Trip,  and  with  special 
modifications  by  Hofmann  (in  Weissagungund  Erfi^dlung,  i.),  from  whom  it  has  been 
adopted  by  Kurtz  and  Delitzsch,  who  gave  up  their  former  view  under  Hofmann's 
influence,  though  Delitzsch  indeed  holds  theview  with  a  peculiar  indecision.  On 
this  view,  an  angel  is  to  be  understood  by  the  Malakh,  that  is,  o.  finite  spirit  under 
subjection  to  God,  wdiich  executes  the  divine  command  in  the  cases  mentioned. 
That  a  particular  angel  may  be  styled  the  angel  of  Jehovah, — that  the  term  Mal- 
akh, in  and  for  itself,  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  the  person  so  characterized 
stands  in  a  higher  sphere  above  the  angels, — must  certainly   be  conceded.     On 


13;^  THE    DOCTKiNES    Ais'D    ORDINAK'CES    OF   MOSAlSM.  [§    60. 

this  view,  the  explanation  of  the  fact,  that  in  a  series  of  passages  what  the  angel 
speaks  and  does,  appears  as  the  words  and  acts  of  Jehovah,  is,  that  the  words  and 
acts  of  a  messenger  are  jiroperly  the  words  and  acts  of  him  whom  he  represents. 
It  is  also  urged  that  in  the  prophetic  style  the  word  of  the  prophet  is  often  identi- 
fied with  the  word  of  Jehovah  ;  and  that  in  the  New  Testament,  where  tne^dy7f;iof 
Kvpiov  is  certainly  a  created  spirit,  his  act  {e.g.  Acts  xii.  17)  is  represented  as  an 
act  of  the  Lord  himself  ;  indeed,  in  Rev.  xxii.  6,  13,  the  angel  is  introduced  speak- 
ing for  the  Lord  himself,  and  that  in  the  first  person.  In  reference  to  the  pro- 
phetic style,  however,  it  must  be  noted,  that  the  prophets  almost  always  introduce 
the  divine  wordvFith  "Thus  saith  Jehovah,"  "  Jehovah's  saying  is,"  and  the  like, 
which  is  a  rare  exception  with  the  Malakh,  e.g.  Gen.  xxii.  16,  and  with  regard 
to  Rev.  xxii.  6,  13,  the  angel  there  refuses  the  npoaKvvTjaig  offered  in  ver.  9,  while 
the  Old  Testament  Malakh  accepts  it  (Josh.  v.  14  ),  and  allows  a  sacrifice  to  be 
made  to  him  (Judg.  vi.  19  ff.,  xiii.  18  flf.). 

But,  again,  this  first  view  occurs  in  two  forms.  According  to  ih&Jirst  of  these, 
the  Malakh  is  an  angel  specially  deputed  by  God  from  among  the  number  of 
Malakhim  for  each  separate  occasion^  and  we  have  no  means  of  deciding  whether 
he  is  always  the  same  angel  or  not  (Steudel)  ;  according  to  the  second  form,  (prin- 
cipally Hofmann),  it  is  always  one  and  the  same  angel  through  whom  God  stands 
in  relation  to  the  peojile  of  revelation  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of 
the  Old  Testament — "the  special  angel  {a.?,  Hofmann  expresses  it  in  i\\e  Schrift- 
leweis,  3d  ed.  i.  p.  177)  who  rules  in  the  commonwealth  and  history  of  this 
people,"  the  arch^gel .Michael  of  the  book  of  Daniel  (compare  also  Weissagimg 
vnd  Erfullung,  i.  p.  131).  Apart  from  the  question  whether  the  niH'  '^i*]^  really 
passes  over  into  the  Michael  of  Daniel,  which  is  not  to  be  treated  of  till  we  come 
to  the  prophetic  theology,  and  then  must  be  answered  in  the  negative,  the  latter 
form  of  the  view  seems  to  be  decidedly  preferable  to  the  former,  from  the  high 
titles  which  are  conferred  on  the  angel.  But  in  reference  to  the  whole  first  view, 
it  is  unquestionably  correct,  if  we  assume  that  the  mediation  of  angels  is  entirely 
the  same  throughout  the  whole  history  of  revelation,  both  in  the  Old  and  the  New 
Testament.  Then  the  older  passages  must  be  explained  by  the  later,  especially 
by  the  New  Testament  passages  ;  and  in  these  latter  the  angel  is  manifestly  hypo- 
statically  distinguished  from  God,  and  is  a  created  finite  being  subordinate  to 
God.  This  conception  is  also  admissible  in  several  of  the  older  passages.  The 
one  that  favors  it  most  is  No.  3,  if  Gen.  xix.  18  ff.  is  understood  to  mean  that 
even  the  two  angels  who  are  certainly  subordinate,  are  treated  exactly  as  if 
Jehovah  appeared  in  them  (see  particularly  ver.  34).  Among  the  passages  in  the 
Pentateuch,  Num.  xxii.  31,  in  which  the  angel  is  definitely  distinguished  from 
Jehovah,  is  to  be  adduced  here  ;  but  in  a  number  of  other  passages  no  natural 
sense  is  given  by  this  assumption,  and  the  passages  Nos.  G  and  9  are  entirely  at 
variance  with  it.  In  general  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  assumption  that-the 
Malakh  of  the  Pentateuch  must  be  explained  by  the  ayye7M^  Kvplov  of  the  New 
Testament  is  not  authorized,  because  it  fails  to  recognize  the  gradual  progress 
of  revelation,  which  advances  from  theophanies  to  revelations  made  through 
divinely  appointed  organs  and  through  the  Spirit.  To  this  is  to  be  added, 
that  exactly  the  same  expressions  are  used  in  speaking  of  the  representation 
of  God  by  the  Malakh   as  in  speaking  of  the  divine  indwelling  in  the  sane- 


I    GO.]  THE    DOCTRINE    OP   THE    ANGEL    OF   THE    LORD,  ETC.  133 

tuary  ;  there  is  in  both  the  divine  name  and  the  divine  countenance  (comp.  the 
passages  under  Nos.  8  and  D).  Now  if  the  Sliekhina,  the  indwelling  in  the 
sanctuary,  is  to  be  understood,  according  to  the  Old  Testament,  not  simply  as  an 
ideal  and  symbolical,  but  a  real  presence  of  God,  an  entering  of  the  divine  into 
the  sphere  of  the  creature,  the  presence  of  God  in  the  Malakh  must  not  be 
taken  differently. 

2.  Thus  we  come  to  the  second  principal  view :  that  the  Malakh  of  Jehovah  is 
a  self-presen  tat  ion  of  Jcliuvah  cnterii^g  into  the  syliere  of  the  creature,  and  is  one  in 
essence  with  Jehavah  ;  and  is  yet  again  different  from  Him  (2).  This  view  has 
beenTield^in  three~diflerent  forms  : 

{a)  According  to  the  first  of  these,  the  Malakh  is  the  Logos — the  second  person 
of  the  Godhead  in  the  sense  of  the  Christian  cToctrine  of  the  Trinity.  This  is  the 
view  of  most  of  the  Greek  Fatliers  :  of  Justin,  in  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  chap. 
56,  61,  127  f. ;  also  of  Irenaeus,  TertuUian,  and  Cyprian.  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  gives 
us  a  full  discussion  of  the  Old  Testament  theophany,  from  this  point  of  view,  in 
his  EclogcB  PropheticcB  (published  by  Th.  Gaisford,  1842).  At  a  later  period  this 
was  the  view  of  the  Lutheran  theologians  ;  in  our  own  day  it  has  been  defended  by 
Hengstenberg  (who  speaks  of  the  Malakh  as  an  uncreated  angel),  and  by  others. 

(b)  According  to  the  second  form  (so  Earth),  the  angel  of  Jehovah  is  a  created 
being  ;  with  which,  however,  the  uncreated  Logos  was  po'sonaUj/  connected. 

(c)  According  to  the  third  (so  Vatke,  De  Wette,  and  others),  the  Malakh  is 
nothing  hypostatical  [i.  e.  not  a  personal  being],  but  only  an  unstiistantial  mani- 
festation  of  God ;  a  momentary  descent  of  God  into  visibility  ;  a  mission  of  God 
(here  "^^'J?  is  taken  in  its  original  abstract  meaning),  which  again  returns  into 
the  Divine  Being. 

Against  the  frst  view,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  it  brings  into  the  Old 
Testament  a  finished  dogma  on  the  subject  of  an  immanent  distinction  in  the 
divine  nature  for  which  the  passages  which  lie  before  us  contain  no  sufficient 
authorization,  since  they  do  not  tell  us  anything  of  an  inward  and  essential  re- 
lation in  God's  being,  but  only  distinguish  the  divine  which  has  entered  into  the 
sphere  of  created  phenomena  from  the  Divine  Being  in  his  celestial  infinitude,  as 
appears  in  a  very  remarkable  manner  in  Gen.  xix.  24,  "Jehovah  caused  it  to 
rain  from  Jehovah  out  of  heaven."  Even  Hengstenberg  admits  that,  in  the  Old 
Testament,  the  Revealer  and  He  whom  He  reveals,  lose  themselves  in  each  other, 
as  it  were  ;  so  that  from  this  view  ideas  might  easily  arise  very  similar  to  those 
of  Sabellianism.  Moreover,  as  is  justly  urged  by  the  adherents  of  the  second  view 
(Barth),  it  is  certainly  a  strange  ex2:)ression  to  speak  of  an  uncreated  angel.  The 
phenomena  of  nature,  which  serve  as  a  form  of  manifestation  to  the  Malakh  ; 
the  flame  (Ex.  iii.),  the  cloudy  covering  (Ex.  xl.  36-38),  the  human  form  (in  well- 
known  passages),  are  certainly  created.  It  is  not  the  Malakh  that  is  uncreated, 
but  the  God  who  veils  Himself  in  His  appearance. 

In  opposition  to  the  second  view,  it  is  to  be  remarked  that  there  is  no  proof  that 
the  manifestation  of  the  Divinity  in  the  form  of  the  Malakh  was  such  that  the 
Son  of  God  became  permanently  an  angel  ;  so  that  again  in  becoming  man  He  had 
as  it  were  to  strip  off  the  angelic  form  which  He  had  received,  and  change  it 
for  a  human  nature  (to  which  Earth's  view  amounts).  Finally,  the  third  view 
does  justice  to  a  number  of  passages  ;  but  from  others  it  clearly  appears  that  not 


134  THE    DOCTKINES    A  XI)    ORDINAXCES    OP    MOSAISM.  [§    Gl. 

merely  a  iiersonification,  l)ut  a  real  person,  is  present  in  the  manifestation  of  tlie 
Malakh. 

It  must  be  acknowledged,  then,  that  no  one  of  the  various  views  does  full  justice 
to  all  the  2')f'ssages ;  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Malakh  in  the  Old  Testament  os- 
cillatcs  in  a  peculiar  manner  between  the  conception  of  the  angel,  as  a  form  and 
as  a  b^eintr,  so  that  it  seems  imjiossible  to  bring  the  matter  to  a  definite  intelligi- 
ble expression.  But  the  case  has  a  different  aspect  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
New  Testament.  From  this  (see  especially  1  Cor.  x.  4)  it  is  the  Logos,  the  Son  of 
Gojl^  throuffh  whom  revelations  to  Israel  are  made,  and  who  therefor(^  works  Jn 
the  Malakh.  But  noAvhere  in  the  New  Testament  is  the  Son  of  God  so  identified 
with  the  Malakh  as  if  His  incarnation  had  l»cen  preceded  by  His  permanently 
becoming  an  angel.  The  Logos,  according  to  the  New  Testament  view,  works 
also  in  the  other  forms  of  revelation  in  the  old  covenant  and  in  just  the  same  way 
as  in  the  form  of  the  Malakh  (3). 

(1)  Delitzsch  also  has  not  failed  to  recognize  this  element,  when,  in  his  Com- 
mentary on  Genesis  (1st  ed.  p. 256,  2d  ed.p.;?;57j,  he  insists,  indeed,  that  the  Malakh 
is  to  be  understood  as  a  finite  sjiiiit,  but  at  the  same  time  says  that  it  must  not 
be  forgotten  that  in  this  personally  living  finite  si)irit,  God  presents  Himself  in 
person  ;  that  the  angel  has  Jehovah,  not  outside  of  him,  but  within  him  ;  that 
the  relation  to  the  Malakh  is  less  than  a  becoming  an  angel,  yet  more  than  a 
sending  of  an  angel.  His  conception,  which  occupies  an  intermediate  position  be- 
tween the  first  and  second  main  views,  lacks  clearness. 

(2)  [Among  the  defenders  of  this  view  Schultz  is  also  to  be  reckoned.  "The 
angel  of  God  is  the  revelation  of  the  divine  essence  and  will,  when  it  is  made  to 
man  for  a  distinct  purpose.  .  .  .  He  represents  God  :  he  is  the  form  of  the  rev- 
elation of  God  :  what  he  speaks  is  the  word  of  God  :  one  who  has  seen  him  has 
seen  God,"  (p.  567  f.)  Whether  the  Angel  is  to  be  conceived  of  as  in  his  own  sub- 
f.tance  a  personal  being,  he  does  not  say].  Moxidrs,  Die  Fhdnicier,  i.  pp.  389  ff., 
428  ff. ,  has  pointed  out  a  remarkable  analogy  in  ■«  hich  the  Phoenician  religion  here 
stands  to  that  of  the  Old  Testament,  namely,  in  the  way  in  which  the  relation  of 
Heracles  to  the  ancient  Bel  is  understood  in  the  former  faith, — difference  in  unity, 
and  unity  in  difference,  being  firmly  held. 

(3)  In  the  later  Jewish  theology^  the  doctrine  of  the  Metatron  (probably  from 
^ETadpovoc,  sharer  of  the  throne),- — the  Prince  of  the  countenance,  who  is  the  re- 
vealer  of  God,  the  mediator  between  God  and  the  creature, — is  developed  out  of  the 
Old  Testament  doctrine  of  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  the  angel  of  the  covenant, 
of  the  countenance.  In  order  to  make  him  as  near  as  possible  to  God,  he  was 
understood  by  some  to  be  not  a  creature,  but  an  emanation  from  the  Divine 
Being  ;  and  then,  in  order  to  do  justice  to  other  passages  in  the  Old  Testament, 
they  again  distinguished  from  him  a  second  lower,  created  Metatron.  But  even 
the  later  Jewish  theology  did  not  penetrate  to  the  recognition  of  an  immanent 
and  real  distinction  in  the  Divine  Being. 

§  61. 

Other  Points  of  the  Mosaic  Angelology. 

Even  in  the  Pentateuch,  though  there  comparatively  seldom,  other  angels  of 
God  appear  side  by  side  with  the  Malalch  k.  k^.  Nothing  is  said  about  their 
creation  ;  the  fact  that  they  are  not  mentioned  in  the  account  of  the  creation  is 
probably  to  be  explained  from  the  circumstance  that  this  record  aims  merely  to 
give  a  history  of   the  creation  of   the    earth,  and   its  completion   in    man.      On 


§    61.]  OTHER    POIXTS    OF   THE    MOSAIC    ANGELOLOGY.  135 

the  contrary,  the  book  of  Job,  chap,  xxxviii.  7,  presupposes  the  existence  of 
the  angels  when  the  earth  was  created.  In  those  passages  in  the  Pentateuch  in 
which  other  angels  besides  the  Malakh  are  mentioned,  they  appear  witjiout  inde- 
pendent activity,  as  a  sort  of  multiplication  of  the  operating  power  of  God  :  thus 
especially  Gen.  xxviii.  12,  besides  which  compare  xxxii.  2f.,  in  Avhich  passage 
they  are  called  God's  army  ;  Deut.  xxxiii.  2,  where  they  appear  as  the  attend- 
ants of  God,  manifested  in  His  glory  at  the  giving  of  the  law.  Gen.  vi.  1  ff. 
would  be  entirely  without  a  parallel,  not  only  in  the  Pentateuch,  but  in  the 
whole  Old  Testament,  if  higher  spirits  are  to  be  understood  by  the  D'ribxn  "j^ 
(1).  It  is  true  the  angels,  the  D'DXra,  besides  this  name,  which  is  characteris- 
tic of  their  calling,  bear  in  the  Old  Testament  the  name  sons  of  God  (D''rl7Xn  '^3), 
Job  i.  6,  ii.  1,  or  D  /*<  'J3,*Ps,  xxix.  1,  Ixxxix.  7,  in  order  to  express  the  closer  fel- 
lowship in  which  they  stand  to  God  (2).  Accordingly,  Gen.  vi.  1  ff.  is  referred 
to  the  fall  of  the  angels  by  many  recent  theologians  (Hofmann,  Kurtz,  Delitzsch), 
as  had  been  already  done  by  several  of  the  Church  Fathers, — a  view  which  origi- 
nally (as  Keil  has  pointed  out)  sprang  from  the  book  of  Enoch.  According  to 
another  view,  on  tlic  contrary  (some  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church,  the  Reformers, 
and  in  more  modern  times  Dettinger,  Ilengstenberg,  Keil,  and  others),  the  ex- 
pression "  sons  of  God  "  refers  to  men,  to  the  /nous  nice  descended  from  Seth,  as  the 
name  "  sons  of  God"  is  used  in  Deut.  xiv.  1,  xxxii.  5,  IIos.  ii.  1,  Ps.  Ixxiii. 
15.  On  this  view,  the  passage  refers  to  the  marriage  of  Seth's  descendants  with 
Cainitic  women,  by  which  means  the  corruption  of  Cain's  race  sjiread  among  the 
Sethites.  Not  only  is  the  connection  in  which  the  whole  story  stands  to  what  pre- 
cedes, but  also  ver.  3,  in  which  an  erring  of  man,  not  of  the  higher  spirits,  is  spoken 
of,  in  favor  of  the  latter  view  ;  but  so  also  is  the  expression  "  they  took  wives," 
which  is  confessedly  used  in  the  Old  Testament  only  in  speaking  of  formal  mar- 
riage, not  of  unchaste  connection.  The  assertion  that  ^l^r}  in  contrast  with  the 
D'r' '^"7  'JS,  must  refer  to  the  whole  race  of  mankind,  and  cannot  be  taken  in  a 
relative  sense,  is  refuted  by  comparing  it  with  similar  passages,  such  as  Jer.  xxxii, 
20  (01^31  bxyc/'i),  Isa.  xliii.  4,  Ps.  Ixxiii.  5.  The  assertion,  repeated  by  Schra- 
der,  that  there  is  no  ground  to  assume  that  two  moral  tendencies  radically  differ- 
ent ran  through  mankind  in  primeval  times,  can  only  be  wondered  at  in  view  of 
Gen.  iv.  Note  especially  that  Seth's  race,  iv.  26,  is  characterized  as  that  race  by 
which  God  is  adored  as  Jehovah,  and  therefore  as  the  race  of  revelation  (.3). 

In  comparison  with  the  later  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  angelohgy  of 
the_£miaJMich  is  Init  little  deteloped.  This  testifies  against  the  opiniou  of  those 
who  hold  the  angels  of  the  Old  Testament  to  be  degraded  gods  of  an  ancient 
polytheism.  De  Wette,  in  his  Biblical  Dogmatics  (3d  ed.  p.  81),  has  well  re- 
marked, in  opposition  to  this  view,  that  if  this  had  been  the  case,  the  course  of 
the  angelology  in  the  Old  Testament  must  have  been  exactly  the  opposite  of  what 
it  is.  The  angels  would  necessarily  have  appeared  with  definite  names  and  func- 
tions in  the  older  books,  not  first  in  the  latest  ones.  But  De  Wette  himself  holds 
a  view  equally  false, — namely,  that  angels  were  originally  personifications  of 
naturaLioriQeSj_or  of  the  extraordinary  operations  and  visitations  of  God.  Even 
Ps.  civ.  4  is  no  proof  of  the  former  point  (4)  ;  on  the  contrary,  such  a  personification 
of  natural  forces  presupposes  a  belief  in  angels. — In  the  Pentateuch,  the  Malakh- 


136  THE    DOCTRINKS    AND    ORDINANCES    OF    MOSAISM,  [§    Rl. 

im  are  obviously  connected  with  the  Malakh,  forming  as  it  were  many  fainter  copies 
of  him^  and  in  this  connection  the  vision  in  Gen.  xxviii.  is  especially  instructive. 
The  idea  of  the  Malakh,  however,  is  not  the  product  of  a  tendency  to  personifi- 
cation ;  but  its  meaning  is,  as  we  have  already  seen,  that  in  him  a  beginning  is 
made  toward  the  doing  away  of  the  separation  between  God  and  the  world  (5). 


(1)  Gen.  vi.  Iff.:"  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  men  began  to  multiply  on 
the  face  of  the  earth,  and  daughters  were  born  unto  them,  that  the  sons  of  God 
saw  the  daughters  of  men  that  they  were  fair  ;  and  they  took  them  wives  of  all 
tliat  pleased  them.  Then  Jehovah  said  :  My  spirit  shall  not  always  rule  in  men, 
in  their  errors  they  are  flesh  ;  and  let  their  days  be  a  hundred  and  twenty  years. 
There  were  giants  on  the  earth  in  those  days  ;  and  also  afterward,  when  the  sons 
of  God  w^ent  in  to  the  daugiiters  of  men,  and  they  bare  unto  them,  there  were 
strong  ones  who  were  of  old  renowned  men." — We  need  not  waste  words  on  the  an- 
cient view  (Onkelos,  etc.)  that  DTl/Nn  ^J3  here  denotes  sons  of  princes,  magnates, 
and  that  the  whole  matter  refers  to  mesalliances,  that  noble  blood  was  mixed  with 
plebeian  blood,  and  this  drew  down  the  divine  wrath  on  man.  The  question  is  : 
Are  the  sons  of  God  Sgthites,  or  are  they  higher  spirits  ?  and  is  a  fall  of  the  angels 
here  spoken  of  ?  On  the  latter  supposition,  we  sliould  have  an  element  in  Genesis 
of  which  there  is  certainly  no  trace  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  which  rather  puts  us 
in  mind  of  the  heathen  myths.  But  this  must  not  hinder  us  from  candidly  ac- 
knowledging anything  that  the  text  demands.  The  passage  has  led  to  a  very 
bitter  feud  between  Kurtz  and  Hengstenberg.  Kurtz  wrote  two  separate  polemi- 
cal treatises  upon  it  (1857-58).  At  present  the  hypothesis  of  the  angelsjsthe 
mos_twiilGly_,spread.  But  I  believe  that  especially  Dettinger  ("  Bemerkungen TTBer 
den  Abs^nitti  Mos.  iv.  1-vi.  8,  den  Zusammenhang  und  einzelne  schwierigere Par- 
tiendesselben,"  Tub.  Zeitschr.  filr  Theul.  1885,  vol.  i.),  and  Keil  ("  Die  Ehen  der 
Kinder  Gottes  mit  den  Tochteru  der  Menschen,"  Zeitschr .  filr  luth.  Theol.  und 
Kirche,  1855,  p.  220  f. ),  who  also  still  defends  the  older  view,  are  quite  in  the 
right  here. — Compare  also,  for  the  angel  hypothesis,  Schrader,  Studien  zur  Kritih 
und  ErJddrung  der  liblischen  Urgeschichte  Gen.  i.-xi.,  1863.  [See  also  Schultz  p.  118 
ff.  Kohler,  Bihl.  Gesch.  d.  A.  T.  I.  p.  56. J 

(2)  Some  understand  D'7X  to  be  a  pluralis  majestatis  for  OTi  ■  ?!?,  which  would  be 
admissible  if  only  D'?**  occurred  in  this  sense  in  any  one  passage.  But  -elsewhere 
D'7?*  is  always  a  pure  plural.  Therefore  I  hold  that  view  to  be  correct  which 
regards  D'?!>?  "J^  grammatically  as  a  double  plural  of  '^"J?,  like  O'h'l'n  '").13J,  1 
Chron.  vii.  5,  for  b:n  n.l3J. 

(3)  [The  support  of  the  explanation  which  makes  the  sons  of  God  to  be  the 
Sethites  would  certainly  be  gone  if,  as  Schultz  supposes,  we  could  not  know  that 
the  Sethites  were  good  and  the  Cainites  ungodly,  and  if  (p.  119)  the  narrative  in  Gen. 
vi.  1  ff.  makes  no  mention  of  Cain  or  of  Seth  and  their  descendants  and  stands 
where  it  does  only  because  between  Gen.  ii.  4  b  and  the  end  of  chap  iv.  there  was  no 
place  for  it.  But  this  last  assertion  is  notliing  but  a  hypothesis,  to  which  the  con- 
fidence with  which  it  is  advanced  gives  no  scientific,  value.  Even  supposing  that 
the  passage  did  not  originally  belong  to  the  composition  of  which  it  now  forms  a 
part,  what  support  does  this  give  to  the  assumption  that  it  formerly  stood  in  no 
connection,  or  in  one  different  from  the  present  one  ?  Against  the  remark  concern- 
ing the  Sethites  and  Cainites  compare  Schultz's  own  words  p.  028  :  "  and  indeed 
in  the  time  of  Seth  the  propagation  of  a  better  tendency  of  mankind  appears,  while 
in  the  posterity  of  Cain,  sin  .  .  .  defiantly  flaunts  tlie  ])()wcr  of  self-defence  and 
the  appeal  to  force."  That  the  Sethites,  on  accomit  of  their  religious  relation  to 
God  migiit  be  called  "  sons  of  God,"  and  in  contrast  with  them  the  others  simply 
"  men, "  ought  not  to  be  denied.]  The  inconvenient  DJti'S  Schrader  gets  out  of  the 
way  by  a  cliange  of  the  text.     Comp.  on  this  word  §  77,  note  4. 


§   62.]  THE   SHEKHINA.  137 

(4)  Ps.  civ.  4  is  explained  in  different  ways,  according  to  what  is  regarded  as 
the  nearer  ol)ject.  I  hold  the  common  explanation  to  be  the  right  one:  "He 
makes  the  winds  His  messengers,  and  flames  of  fire  His  servants."  The  other 
view  is:    '•  He  makes  His  messengers  winds,"  etc.   (Hofmann). 

(5)  Compare  also  Schultz's  Old  Testament  Theol.  (p.  568). — For  the  further  de- 
velopment of  Old  Testament  angelology,  see  the  Projjhetic  Theology  (§  197  ff). — On 
Azazel,  see  §  140. 

§62. 

The  Shekhina. 

The  continuous  localization  of  the  divine  presence  was  made  in  the  Shekhina, 
that  is,  the  dwelling  of  God,  distinguished  from  passing  theophanies  by  virtue  of 
its  continuance.  The  expression  belongs  properly  to  the  later  Jewish  theology, 
but  is  drawn  from  those  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  where  a  dwelling  (p^)  of 
Jehovah  or  of  the  name  of  Jehovah  among  the  people  is  spoken  of,  Deut.  xii.  5, 
11,  xiv.  23,  1  Kings  viii.  12,  because  of  which  the  holy  tabernacle  is  called  his 
dicelling  (niH'  J^^O),   more    fully  expressed    in  1    Kings    viii.    13,    as   ^13T  n^a 

The  first  abode  of  the  divine  Shekhina,  according  to  the  Old  Testament,  was 
Eden,  as  appears  from  the  whole  description  in  Gen.  ii.  f.,  but  in  particular  from 
the  mention  of  the  cherubim,  iii.  24,  which  were  bearers  of  tlie  divine  presence. 
There  it  remained  after  the  fall  ;  there  was  the  divine  countenance,  according  to 
which  iv.  14  is  to  be  interpreted.  The  book  of  Genesis  seems  to  suggest  the  idea 
that  the  dwelling-place  of  the  glory  and  the  countenance  of  God  continued  there 
upon  the  earth  until  the  judgment  of  the  flood  came  on  the  world.  Then  after  the 
flood  God  revealed  Himself  for  the  first  time  from  heaven.  At  a  later  time,  God's 
dwelling  among  His  people  was  in  the  sanctuary,  of  which,  Ex.  xl.  34-38,  the 
glory  of  Jehovah  (njri'  113^)  took  possession  in  the  phenomenon  of  the  cloud,  in 
the  same  way  in  which,  Lev.  xvi.  2,  it  appears  in  the  same  phenomenon  over  the 
ark  of  the  covenant.  Here  now  is  God's  countenance,  according  to  which  the  well- 
known  expressions  are  to  be  explained  :  Ex.  xxiii.  17,  rnrr  'J3~7{<  nxy,  shall  ap- 
pear before  the  face  of  Jehovah  ;  Deut.  xxxi.  11,  nin'  'Ja^nx  riiKlS  ;  compare 
further  Ps.  xlii.  3,  Ixiii.  3,  in  which  the  consciousness  of  the  especial  presence  of 
God  in  the  sanctuary  is  actually  characterized  as  a  gazing  on  God.  From  passages 
such  as  Lev.  ix.  24,  x.  2,  the  Shekhina  shows  its  reality  in  the  sanctuary  by  means 
of  acts  of  power  which  go  out  from  it.  Because  of  it,  the  Israelite  was  in  all 
places  to  turn  himself  toward  the  sanctuary  when  praying,  1  Kings  viii.  30,  35,  38 
(in  Solomon's  prayer) — the  so-called  Kebla,  compare  Dan.  vi.  11.  Hence  the  ex- 
planation of  passages  like  Ps.  iii.  5  :  "I  cried  to  Jehovah  with  my  voice,  and  He 
answered  me  from  His  holy  hill."  The  Shekhina  of  God  on  earth  corresponds  to 
His  dwelling  in  heaven,  1  Kings  viii.  30,  39,  49,  which,  like  that  in  the  sanctuary, 
is  definitely  distinguished  from  the  presence  of  God,  which  embraces  the  whole 
universe  ;  see  ver.  27  of  the  same  chapter  ;  compare  Deut.  iv.  39,  Isa.  Ixvi.  1. 
In  this  sense  the  heavenly  dwelling-place  is  explained  as  the  sphere  from  which 
answers  to  prayer  proceed,  1  Kings  viii.  30,  32,  34,  39,  43.  In  view  of  such 
utterances,  it  is  not  in  the  sense  of  the  Old  Testament,  to  explain  passages  in 
which  heaven  is  designated  as  the  temple  of  God,  Ps.  xi.  4,  xviii.  7,  xxix.  9, 


138  THE    DOCTRINES    AXD    ORDINANCES    OF    MOSAISM.  [§    03- 

or  in  which  GorVs  throne  in  heaven  is  spoken  of,  Ps.  ii.  4,  ciii.   19,  etc.,  as  a 
purely  popular,  unconsciously  symbolical  manner  of  expression.     (Comp.  §46.) 

According  to  the  foregoing,  God's  dwelling  is  outside  the  human  subject  ; 
the  idea  of  the  divine  habitation  is  not  applied  to  the  sending  of  the  Divine 
Spirit  into  the  heart  of  man  (1).  Even  the  passage  Isa.  Ivii.  15  does  not  speak  of 
God  dwelling  in  the  heart  of  the  humble  ones.  The  New  Testament  (John  i.  14) 
is  the  first  to  place  the  divine  Shekhina  in  a  human  person,  in  the  Logos  become 
flesh  {kaKfjvuaev  h  y/iiv),  and  then  it  speaks  of  God's  making  His  abode  (jiovf/v 
ttoleIv)  with  believers  (John  xiv.  23).  Still  the  proper  Shekhina  of  God  in 
heaven  appears  again  in  the  Apocalypse  (Rev.  vii.  15),  and  the  aim  of  the  divine 
kingdom  is  said  to  be  the  aK.ijvwsLq  of  God  on  the  glorified  earth  (xxi.  3)  ;  compare 
also  Jer.  iii.  16  f .  (3). 

(1)  Compare  the  doctrine  of  the  nil,  §  65.  Here  is  a  remarkable  difference 
between  the  theology  of  the  Koran  and  the  Old  Testament :  the  Koran,  borrowing 
from  the  New  Testament,  speaks  of  the  divine  Shekhina  as  sent  down  into  the 
hearts  of  believers,  Sur.  xlviii.  4  and  26  ("  Who  sends  down  His  Shekhina  into  the 
hearts  of  believers,  that  they  grow  continually  in  the  faith").  But  the  Koran  so 
wholly  lacks  the  New  Testament  knowledge  of  the  indwelling  of  God  in  believers' 
hearts  througli  the  Spirit,  that  this  idea  is  reduced  to  an  empty  phrase.  Compare 
Dettinger,  "  Beitriige  zu  eiuer  Theol.  des  Korans,"  Till).  Zeitschr.  1834,  pp.  16- 
31. 

(3)  Rev.  vii.  15  :  "  They  serve  Him  day  and  night  in  His  temple,  nal  6  mOf^fiEvog 
eirl  Tov  Opovov  cKTjvuaei  etv'  aiiTovc.'''' — According  to  Jer.  iii.  16  f.,  the  Shekhina  of 
Jehovah  is  to  be  no  longer  connected  with  the  ark  of  the  covenant  in  the  time  of 
salvation.  That  indwelling  of  God,  whose  vehicle  was  the  ark  of  the  covenant, 
and  whose  abode  was  the  holy  of  holies,  shall  be  extended  over  the  whole  of 
Jerusalem,  so  that  the  ark  of  the  covenant  shall  not  be  missed.  The  barrier 
wl\ich  separated  the  sinful  people  from  their  God  is  taken  away.  Jerusalem  is 
now  co-ordinate  with  the  name  of  Jehovah  ;  he  who  comes  to  Jerusalem  comes  to 
the  name  of  Jehovah. — Touching  the  import  of  the  Old  Testament  doctrine 
of  the  Shekhina,  compare  also  the  passage  fi'om  Luther's  Exeget.  opera  lat. 
xvi.  p   71,  already  quoted,  §  6,  note  3. 

§63. 

The  Doctrine  of  Miracle.     Its  Appearance  in  History  and  Various  Names. 

The  forms  of  revelation  discussed  in  the  preceding  paragraphs  may  be  brought 
under  the  notion  of  the  miraculous,  so  far  as  they  are  manifestations  which  inter- 
rupt the  ordinary  course  of  nature,  and  cannot  be  explained  thereby.  But  in  the 
stricter  sense,  the  Old  Testament  understands  by  miracles,  mN73J,  not  manifesta- 
tions of  the  Divine  Being  in  the  sense  of  immediate  personal  communication,  but 
manifestations  of  the  divine  yower  in  the  objective  world,  both  in  nature  and 
in  history.  It  is  characteristic  of  the  course  of  Old  Testament  revelation,  that 
no  real  miracle — that  is,  no  miracle  wrought  by  man's  agency — is  related  in 
the  time  of  the  patriarchs.  Not  until  the  deliverance  from  Egypt  did  God  reveal 
Himself  as  xSs  xVi)];  (Ex.  xv.  11),  or,  in  other  words,  not  till  then  begin  the 
divine  riiX'^SJ  (iii.  30).  Moses  is  the  first  organ  of  revelation  endowed  with  the 
gift  of  performing  miracles.  From  that  time  onward,  miracles  are  grouped  only 
around  a  few  organs  of  revelation  ;  and,  indeed,  they  occur  chiefly  when  the  point 


§    64.]  THE    DOCTRINE    OF   JIIRxVCLE.  139 

in  question  is  to  give  testimony  for  the  reality  of  the  God  revealed  in  Israel,  in 
opposition  to  heathenism,  that  is,  where  the  living  God  measures  Himself  in 
combat  with  false  gods  ;  so  from  Ex.  viii.  18,  xxxiv.  10,  onward  in  many  passages 
(in  Egypt,  in  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  in  Babel,  etc.). — The  closer  defini- 
tion of  the  notion  of  miracles  follows  mainly  from  the  names  for  a  miracle : — 

1.  The  most  general  expression,  ^7?,  J^^^PpJ,  from  N7i3  =  n73,  to  select,  charac- 
terizes miracle  in  its  negative  aspect,  as  an  occurrence  withdrawn  from  the 
common  course  of  things,  and  thus  an  extraordinary  occurrence.  This,  too, 
seems  to  be  the  notion  expressed  by  the  original  meaning  of  the  word  ri31D  ;  but 
the  explanation  of  this  difficult  word  is  uncertain.  According  to  the  derivation 
given  by  Delitzsch  (on  Ps.  Ixxi.  7),  it  would  come  from  the  Arabic  root  a2)hata, 
which  signifies  "to  twist,  to  turn"  ;  it  would  then  mean  something  tortuous, 
strangely  turned,  and  in  this  sense  something  to  excite  astonishment.  Others 
refer  to  the  stem  nS"',  to  gleam,  or,  like  Fiirst,  to  the  stem  1^2',  which  has  the 
same  meaning  (so  that  the  word  would  stand  for  nj^SlD),  from  which  it  would 
signify  glittering,  gleaming.  In  the  New  Testament  this  negative  characteristic 
of  a  miracle  is  denoted  by  the  expression  rtpaq. 

2.  On  the  contrary,  the  ■positive  side  of  a  miracle  is  expressed  in  the  term 
nm^^  (mighty  deeds),  corresponding  to  the  New  Testament  6vvdfieig,  that  is,  in- 
dications of  divine  power ^  side  by  side  with  which  (comp.  e.g.  Deut.  iii.  24) 
there  appears  the  more  general  emphatic  expression  D'tyj^D,  or  more  frequently 
^^'/J-',  great  deeds,  corresponding  to  £pya  in  John.  According  to  this,  a  miracle 
would  mainly  be  a  divhie  act  ofpoicer,  exempjt  from  tlie  common  course  of  nature 
and  history.  So  far  as  it  is  something  nexo  which  cannot  be  understood  from 
the  past,  it  is  placed  under  the  view-point  of  creatio7i,  Ex.  xxxiv.  10  :  "I 
will  do  mN7£)J,  such  as  have  never  been  created  (^Nl.^J)  on  the  whole  earth."  In- 
deed, a  miracle  is  itself  called  nx'"i3,  a  thing  created,  Num.  xvi.  30,  compared 
with  Jer.  xxxi.  22. 

3.  But  the  full  idea  of  a  miracle  is  expressed  only  by  its  teleological  designation 
as  r\1X,  ar/j^e'iov,  according  to  which  its  meaning  is,  an  indication  of  something  higher 
and  divine,  and  so  to  serve  a  definite  divine  aim.  Here  too  would  belong  the 
word  naio,  if  in  its  original  signification,  adopted  by  some  scholars,  it  is  to 
be  referred  to  a  root  ^3",  from  the  biliteral  ri3,  signifying  to  open.  It  would  thus 
indicate  that  by  which  anything  is  opened  and  unlocked.  And  this  idea  is 
certainly  brought  out  by  r>£)iD  in  its  narrower  meaning,  in  which  it  denotes 
portentum,  a  sign  pointing  to  the  future,  or  sometimes  a  type  ;  compare  Isa.  viii. 
18,  XX.  2.  Perhaps  the  word  is  so  to  be  understood  in  Deut.  xiii.  2,  where  it  is 
distinguished  from  mx  (HS'lD  "IX  n'lX). 

§64. 

Continuation.     More  exact  Definition  of  Miracles, 

What  has  been  already  stated  gives  no  more  than  a  relative  definition  of 
miracle.  Every  more  notable  manifestation  of  the  course  of  nature  and  history 
presents  a  side  on  which  it  is  extraordinary  and  excites  astonishment,  brings  the 
divine  power  to  view,  and  may  be  recognized  as  serving  a  divine  aim.     And,  in 


140  THE    DOCTKIXKS    AND    OUUINANCES    OF    MOSAISM.  [§    64. 

fact,  the  Old  Testament  sometimes  makes  use  of  the  expression  niX7i3J  in  a  wider 
sense  ;  when,  for  example,  marine  phenomena  are  called  God's  wonders  in  the 
deep,  Ps.  cvii.  24  ;  when  in  Ps.  cxxxix.  14  it  is  said  with  reference  to  man  :  "I 
praise  Thee,  because  I  am  an  astonishing  wonder  ;  Thy  works  are  marvellous,  and 
my  soul  knowethit  right  well."  What  Hegel  says  in  the  Phihsojjhy  of  Religion 
(ii.  1st  ed.  p.  49)  is  not  correct,— namely,  that  the  things  in  the  Old  Testament 
religion  are  prosaic  things,  presented  in  various  intellectual  connections  of 
cause,  result,  quality,  and  quantity,  according  to  all  these  categories  of  the 
understanding.  This,  says  Hegel,  is  what  we  call  a  natural,  rational  connection  ; 
and  only  here  can  the  definite  notion  of  "  miracle  "  occur  as  something  in  opposition 
to  the  natural  connection  of  things  (1).  On  the  contrary,  what  has  been  already 
said  shows  that  the  way  of  looking  at  nature  characteristic  of  the  Old  Testament 
does  not  at  all  consist  in  the  contemplation  of  such  a  natural  causal  nexus.  God's 
power  rules  in  everything, — God,  who  causes  the  breath  of  life  to  go  forth  and 
withdraws  it  again  (Ps.  civ.  29  f.);  who  unrolls  the  heaven,  and  renews  the  earth, 
etc.  (2).  Thus,  according  to  the  Old  Testament  view,  God  does  not  by  miracle, 
in  the  narrower  sense  of  the  word,  do  anything  that  surpasses  in  quality  His 
universal  control  in  nature  and  history.  The  more  exact  definition  of  miracles  in 
the  more  limited  sense  is  given  by  the  more  exact  definition  of  the  aim  of  miracles, 
namely,  that  miracles  serve  to  reveal  God  in  His  kingdom.  Miracles,  in  the 
stricter  sense,  are  extraordinary  manifestations  and  occurrences,  in  which  God  makes 
known  His  power  for  the  purposes  of  His  Idngdom  in  a  unique  manner.  From  this  it 
is  explicable  why  miracles  appear  as  manifestations  of  the  "divine  holiness ;  the 
tj"ip3  "i'^5<^,  the  One  glorious  in  holiness,  is  the  doer  of  miracles,  Ex.  xv.  11,  com- 
pare Ps.  Ixxvii.  14  f.  (3).  Miracles  serve  tliis  aim  by  means  of  the  impression 
which  they  make  (Ex.  viii..  15  :  "This  is  the  finger  of  God"),  but  only  in  con- 
nection with  the  word-witness  which  accompanies  them  or  stands  in  connection 
with  them.  Even  in  such  a  case  as  1  Sam.  vii.  10,  in  which  the  corresponding 
word  of  God  does  not  follow  expressly,  the  sign  is  still  made  distinct  by  Samuel's 
preceding  prayer.  But  particularly  those  miracles  which  serve  as  the  credentials 
of  an  organ  of  revelation  are  themselves  accredited  by  the  Avord  of  God  given  in 
advance.  Even  a  false  prophet  may  through  circumstances  perform  signs  and 
wonders,  but  he  is  to  be  measured  and  judged  by  his  false  doctrine,  Deut.  xiii.  2 
£f. — In  this  union  with  the  word  of  God,  and  this  priority  of  the  latter,  a 
preservative  is  furnished  against  the  vain  quest  after  wonders  and  signs,  and  a 
noteworthy  dillerenco  between  the  Old  Testament  HiniK  and  the  repara,  ciniara, 
ostenta,  portenta  of  licathenism,  which,  as  a  rule,  do  not  become  intelligible  by 
means  of  a  testimony  in  words  added  to  them,  but  require  explanation,  and  thus 
l)ecome  a  matter  of  human  conjecture  (4).  Israel  is  directed  to  the  word  of  reve- 
lation (I)cut.  xviii.  9  if.),  in  opposition  to  all  heathen  divination,  which  has 
searched  through  heaven  and  earth  to  find  signs  of  the  divine  counsel,  but  in  its 
helplessness  perishes.  The  exorcism  of  the  dead,  and  other  forms  of  divination, 
are  an  abomination,  Lev.  xix.  2C,  31,  xx.  27  ;  and  astrology  is  a  folly,  Isa.  xlvii. 
1:5,  Jer.  X.  2  f.,  etc. 

(1)  Hegel.  I.e.,  continues:    "In  earlier  religions  there  are  no  miracles.     In  the 
Indian  religion  everything  is  out  of  connection  from  the  start.     Miracles  first  ap- 


§    65.]  ON   THE   SPIRIT    OF    GOD.  141 

pear  in  opposition  to  the  order  of  nature,  the  laws  of  nature,  the  conformity  of 
nature  to  law,  .  .  .  and  this  variation  is  represented  as  a  manifestation  of  God 
to  a  single  person." 

(2)  Compare  the  doctrine  of  preservation,  §  53. 

(3)  Ps.  Ixxvii.  14  f.  :  "God,  Thy  way  is  in  holiness  .  .  .  Thou  art  the  God  that 
doest  wonders."     Compare  the  definition  of  holiness,  §  44. 

(4)  Compare  Niigelsbach's  Iloinerische  Theologie,  2d  ed.  p.  168  ft.,  on  the 
Homeric  idea  of  miracles. 

§65. 

On  the  Spirit  of  God. 

God  reveals  Himself  in  the  heart  of  man  by  His  Spirit,  nil,  which,  as  the  spirit 
of  revelation,  corresponds  to  the  cosmical  n^"',  in  the  same  way  as  the  word  of 
revelation  corresponds  to  the  word  of  creation.  As  the  ^j?7'H(;///?e  of  cosmical  life, 
as  D"ri'7i<  nn,  as  the  mighty  divine  force  of  all  things,  the  Spirit  is  the  principle 
of  the  life  of  man's  soul,  and  every  natural  intellectual  gift  in  man  is  traced  back 
to  it :  Joseph's  wisdom,  Gen.  xli.  38  ;  Bezaleel's  skill  in  art,  Ex.  xxxi.  3,  xxxv. 
31  (1).  Gen.  vi.  3  shows  that  this  Spirit  of  God  has  also  an  ethical  signification, 
for,  according  to  this  passage,  the  government  of  God's  Spirit  is  hampered  by 
the  errors  of  mankind.  But  a  clouding  and  derangement  of  the  mental  life,  such 
as  was  sent  on  Saul,  is  also  an  effect  of  the  D'^l^?^  HI'l,  1  Sam.  xvi.  14-16,  23, 
xviii.  10.  And  here  this  evil  QT' '^  Dl"'  is  definitely  distinguished  from  niri'  r\^'\^ 
for  the  latter  forsook  Saul  ;  but  it  was  (xvi.  14)  niH'  rN"p  ni~i,  from  Jehovah. 
But  the  Spirit  as  niH'  nil,  or,  to  express  it  more  definitely,  Tyyn]  W'^p  n=i"l,  only 
acts  witliin  the  sphere  of  revelation.  It  rules  within  the  theocracy  (Isa.  Ixiii.  11  ; 
Hag.  ii.  5  ;  Neh.  ix.  20),  but  not  as  if  all  citizens  of  the  Old  Testament  theocracy 
as  such  participated  in  this  Spirit,  which  Moses  expresses  as  a  wish  (Num.  xi.  20) 
(2),  but  which  is  reserved  for  the  future  community  of  salvation  (John  iii.  1). 
In  the  Old  Testament,  the  Spirit's  work  in  the  divine  kingdom  is  rather  that  of 
endowing  the  organs  of  the  theocracy  with  the  gifts  required  for  their  calling,  and  those 
gifts  of  office  in  the  Old  Testament  are  similar  to  the  gifts  of  grace  in  the  New 
Testament,  1  Cor.  xii.  ff.  In  the  Pentaie?/c/^  its  working  appears  exclusively  in  this 
connection.  The  Spirit  bestows  on  Moses  and  the  seventy  elders  skill  to  guide 
the  people  (Num.  xi.  17  fi.),  also  to  Joshua  (Num.  xxvii.  18  ;  Deut.  xxxiv.  9), 
and  works  at  a  later  period  in  the  judges,  arousing  and  strengthening  them  (Judg. 
vi.  34,  xi.  29,  xiii.  25),  and  comes  on  the  kings,  who  were  called  of  God,  at  their 
anointing  (1  Sam.  x.  6,  xvi.  13).  As  the  Spirit  of  revelation,  He  produces  in 
particular  tli«  gift  of  prophecy,  Num.  xi.  25  ff.  ;  and  even  as  D'tlvX  nn  imparts 
the  ability  to  prophesy  to  the  heathen  Balaam  (Num.  xxiv.  2),  by  which  means  he 
is  made  an  organ  of  the  revealing  God  against  his  will  (xxii.  38).  On  the  con- 
trary, the  Spirit  does  not  appear  in  the  Pentateuch  as  the  principle  of  sanctification 
in  the  pious  ;  this  is  first  spoken  of  in  the  Psalms,  Ps.  li.  13,  comp.  %-ers.  12  and 
14,  cxliii.  10  (3). 

Now  this  Spirit  is  represented  as  a  poiper  proceeding  from  Jehovah, — a  something 
communicated  hy  Him,  which  clings  to  the  person  to  whom  it  is  communicated,  so 
that  it  may  be  apportioned  from  him  to  others  (Num,  xi-  IT,  25  ;  comp,  also  2 


143  THE    DOCTKINES   AND    ORDINANCES    OF   MOSAISM.  [§   66. 

Kings  ii.  9),  but  it  can  also  be  taken  away  from  him  (as  from  Saul,  1  Sam.  xvi. 
14).  It  does  not  follow  from  1  Kings  xxii.  21  that  the  Spirit  is  regarded  as  a  per- 
son, even  if  more  than  a  personification  is  meant  there  (4)  ;  but  the  passage  Isa. 
Ixiii.  10,  "But  they  strove  against  His  Holy  Spirit,  and  grieved  Him"  (an  ex- 
pression which  reminds  us  of  the  word  in  reference  to  the  Malakh,  Ex.  xxiii.  21, 
"  Do  not  provoke  Him"),  docs  imply  that  in  the  Spirit  Jehovah  acts  as  a  person 
(5). 

The  relation  of  the  Spirit  of  revelation  to  the  human  subject  is  characterized  in  a 
way  that  makes  it  clear  why  a  full  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  in  man,  a  penetration  of 
the  human  spirit  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  not  reached  in  the  Old  Testament,  but  only 
a  working  on  the  human  mind.  The  Spirit  is  put  on  man,  JOJ  with  iV- ,  Num.  xi.  25, 
29  ;  Dity  -rtTth  '?;:,  ver.  17  ;  He  rests  on  him,  nij,  ver.  26  ;  He  clothes  Himself 
with  a  man,  ^il,  Judg.  vi.  34  (compare  1  Chron.  xii.  18,  2  Chron.  xxiv.  20)  (6)  ; 
He  breaks  in  upon  him,  pSv  with  "7;!,  Judg.  xiv.  6,  19,  and  in  other  passages. 
His  operations  are  characterized  as  an  impulse  or  stroke,  Di!?,  xiii.  25,  and  there- 
fore He  often  operates  violently  and  overpoweringly  on  the  humaa  constitution 
(7). 

(1)  See  the  particulars  in  the  Anthropology ^  §  70. 

(2)  Num.  xi.  20  :  "  Would  that  all  the  people  were  the  prophets  of  the  Lord, 
and  that  the  Lord  would  put  His  Spirit  upon  them  !" 

(8)  Ps.  li.  i:J,  "Take  not  Thy  Holy  S^jirit  from  me;"  cxliii.  10,  "Let  Thy 
good  Spirit  lead  me." 

(4)  The  passage  1  Kings  xxii.  21,  on  the  Spirit  of  God,  which  acted  as  a  lying 
spirit  in  the  i)rophets,  is  discussed  under  the  doctrine  of  Satan  in  the  prophetic 
part  of  this  book. 

(5)  Though  we  must  not  read  the  New  Testament  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
into  the  Old  Testament,  it  is  yet  undeniable  that  we  find  the  way  to  the 
ceconomic  Trinity  of  the  New  Testament  already  prepared  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
Malakh  and  of  tlie  Spirit. 

(Gj  The  expositors  differ  in  the  explanation  of  the  expression  15*37.  Bertheau, 
Keil,  Fuerst,  Evvald  explain  Judg.  vi.  84  :  The  Spirit  laid  itself  round  Gidebn 
like  a  coat  of  mail.  But  on  this  view,  ought  not  Hiphil  to  be  used  ?  and  is  it  not 
more  correct  to  render  z«<Z«tY  e?//M  .  .  .  Gideon i  se  includcns?  The  man  is  looked 
on  as  the  covering  of  the  Spirit,  which  rules,  speaks,  and  testifies  in  him. 

(7)  The  further  account  of  the  o))erations  of  the  Spirit  on  the  prophets 
(in  treating  of  the  theology  of  the  prophets)  must  connect  itself  with  these  simple 
ideas,  deduced  from  the  principal  passage,  Num.  xi.  25  ff. 


§66. 
The  Rvjehical  States  of  the  Organs  of  Revelation. 

As  psychical  states  in  which  the  reception  of  revelation  by  man  takes  place, 
the  principal  passage  (Xum.  xii.  6-8)  names,  1,  t lie  dream  ;  2,  the  vision  ;  8,  the 
immedinte  sight  of  the  Dirinify  as  given  to  Moses,  which  stands  higher  than  the 
other  two  (1 ). 

1.  Dreams  appear  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  in  antiquity  generally,  as  the  vehicle 
of  divine  revelation,  but  only  in  a  subordinate  way  (2).  It  may  be  concluded  from 
1  Sam.  xxviii.  6  -  in  which  a  scale  of  the  forms  of  revelation  is  given — that  it  stauda 


8  66.]        THE  PSYCHICAL  STATES  OF  THE  ORGANS  OF  REVELATION".         143 

lowest  among  the  forms  of  revelation  ;  this  becomes  still  more  clear  from  Deut. 
xiii.  2-5,  according  to  which  no  one  can  accredit  himself  as  an  organ  of  revelation 
by  means  of  dreams  alone,  but  especially  from  Jer.  xxiii.  28  f..  where  the  "chafl" 
refers  to  dreams,  and  the  consciously  received  word  of  God  is  designated  "  wheat" 
(3).  So,  too,  Eccles.  v.  3,  7  says,  "  Dreams  come  through  much  care."  "  Where 
there  are  many  dreams  and  vanity,  there  are  also  many  words  ;  but  thou  shalt 
fear  thy  God."  While  the  prophets  never  appeal  to  dreams  in  their  extant 
prophecies,  dreams  serve  mainly  as  a  vehicle  of  revelation  to  those  who,  though 
they  are  not  properly  speaking  organs  of  revelation,  obtain  a  divine  communication 
jn  extraordmary  circumstances.  In  the  Pentateuch,  dreams  and  the  power  of  inter- 
preting dreams  given  by  God  occur  only  in  Gen.  xx.  3,  6,  xxviii.  12,  xxxvii.  6  f., 
chap.  xli.  (Joseph)  ;  besides  these,  compare  in  the  Old  Testament,  Judg.  vii.  13  ff., 
1  Kings  iii.  5,  and  the  dreams  in  the  book  of  Daniel,  because  at  the  Babylonian  as 
at  the  Egyptian  court  the  revelation  of  the  true  God  had  to  prove  its  superiority 
over  the  heathen  Manticism.  How  God  awakens  the  sleeping  conscience  of  man 
by  dreams  is  shown  by  Elihu  in  the  book  of  Job  xxxiii.  15  ff. 

2.  Visions,  which  are  called  H^ID  in  the  above-cited  passage  in  Numbers,  else- 
where in  general  njrip,  Gen.  xv.  1,  P'jn,  presuppose  a  previous  elevation  of  the 
life  of  the  soul  into  an  extraordinary  state,  as  is  made  prominent  in  the  first 
narrative  in  which  a  vision  appears,  in  Gen.  xv.  (with  Abraham)  (especially  in  the 
riDTJJ?,  ver.  12,  sleep's  deepest  stupor,  in  which  the  inner  vision  arises.)  Still 
the  difference  between  a  dream  and  a  vision  may  be  regarded  as  not  sharply 
marked.  Visions  do  not  become  a  common  form  of  revelation  until  the  appear- 
ance of  prophecy,  and  therefore  this  point  is  to  be  treated  more  fully  in  the  pro- 
phetic theology. — By  the  two  forms,  dreams  and  visions,  God  speaks  as  is  said  in 
Num.  xii.  8,  only  ^"THrl,  in  riddles,  that  is,  in  a  way  which  requires  an  explana- 
tion of  the  pictures  presented  to  view. 

3.  The  immediate  view  of  the  Divinity  (Hp-bj?  Hp)  with  which  Moses  was  favored 
stands  higher  than  these  forms  ;  that  figureless,  perfect,  clear  communication  of 
knowledge,  which  is  to  be  distinguished  also  from  the  vision  of  God  in  omblematical 
tokens,  spoken  in  Ex.  xxiv.  10  of  Aaron  and  the  elders  of  Israel.  For  the  rest, 
the  principle  that  a  clear  consciousness  when  receiving  revelation  is  placed  higher 
than  ecstasy  is  of  great  importance  for  the  right  view  of  the  Old  Testament  relig- 
ion ;  comp.  the  psychological  discussion  of  prophecy,  as  well  as  use  of  the  passage 
Num.  xii.  6-8  in  1  Cor.  xiii.  12  (4).  The  idea  that  in  the  case  of  some  persons  a 
view  into  the  future  opens  at  the  moment  of  death  is  expressed  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  Gen.  xlix.  and  Deut.  xxxiii.  (in  the  blessings  of  Jacob  and  Moses).  This 
idea  is  also  found  in  heathen  antiquity  (5). 

(1)  Num.  xii.  6-8  :  "  Hear  ye  my  words  :  If  there  is  among  you  a  prophet  of 
Jehovah,  I  will  manifest  myself  to  him  in  vision  (nKi'pa),  and'l  will  speak  with 
him  in  dreams.  Not  so  my  servant  Moses.  He  is  faithful  in  my  whole  house.  I 
speak  with  him  mouth  to  mouth  and  through  the  medium  of  vision  (nS^Dl),  and 
not  in  riddles,  and  he  sees  the  form  of  Jehovah  ;  and  how  is  it  that  ye  are  not 
afraid  to  speak  against  my  servant  ]\Ioses  ?  "  Comp.  the  art,  "  Weissagung  " 
in  Herzog. 

(2)  This  was  also  the  Homeric  view  ;  see  Nagelsbs^ch,  Homer.  Theol.  2d  ed.  p. 
182  ff.,  also  Odyss,  xix.  560  ff, 


144  TlIK    DOCTRINES    AND    ORDINANCES    OF   MOSAISxM.  [§    66. 

(3)  1  Sam.  xxviii.  6  :  "Jehovah  answered  Saul  neither  by  dreams,  nor  by  the 
Urim,  nor  by  prophets."— Jer.  xxiii.  28  f.  :  "Let  the  prophet  who  has  dreams 
tell  dreams,  but  he  who  has  my  word  must  speak  my  word  in  truth  ;  what  is  the 
straw  to  the  wheat?  saith  tlie  Lord." 

(4)  In  1  Cor.  xiii.  13,  that  vision  of  the  Divinity  which  Moses  had  is  designated 
by  Paul  as  the  form  of  knowledge  with  which  we  are  not  yet  favored,  but  shall 
be  in  tlie  future. 

(5)  Comp.  Nagelsbach,  Homer.  Tlieol.  3d  ed.  p.  185  f. 


68  ]  THE    IDEA    OF   MAN.  Ho 


SECOND    DIVISION. 

THE  DOCTKINE  OF  MAN. 

§  67. 

General  View. 

First  of  all,  tJie  nature  of  man  is  to  be  described  without  reference  to  the  con- 
tradictory elements  which  through  sin  entered  into  its  development  ;  and  then 
these  contradictory  elements  are  to  be  set  forth  as  they  appear  in  the  difierence 
between  the  original  perfection  of  man  on  the  one  side,  and  the  state  of  sin  and 
death  in  which  he  now  is  on  the  other  side.  The  anthropology  of  Mosaism  is  here 
to  be  carried  to  the  point  in  which  it  passes  over  into  the  delineation  of  the 
theocratic  relation  of  man  to  God  (1). 

(1)  For  the  rich  literature  on  Biblical  anthropology,  compare  the  most  complete 
work  on  this  topic  :  Delitzsch,  Syntem  of  Biblical  Psychology,  1855,  2d  ed.  1861. 
Besides  this,  the  little  book,  Ftmdamenta  Psycliologim  ex  sacra  scriptura  collecta, 
17G9,  by  Roos,  which  is  rich  in  fine  remarks,  and  not  yet  obsolete  ;  and  the 
Umriss  der  hill.  Seelenlehre,  by  Beck,  1843,  3d  ed.  1871,  deserve  special  mentiou. 
Umbreit's  book.  Die  Lelire  von  der  Silnde,  ein  Beitrag  zur  Theol.  des  A.  2\,  1853, 
goes  over  a  good  part  of  anthropology.  Separate  monographs  will  be  mentioned 
in  their  proper  places'. 


FIRST   CHAPTER. 


THE  NATURE  OF  MAN  IN  ITS  MAIN  UNCHANGEABLE  FEATURES. 

I.    THE   IDEA   OF   MAN. 
§   68. 

The  idea  of  man  is  expressed  in  the  statement  that  he  is  created  in  the  imagejf 
God  (Gen,  i.  26  f.).  This  divine  image  is  propagated  (v.  1,  compared  with  ver.  3). 
The  dignity  of  the  divine  image  is  a  second  time  ascribed  to  man  (ix.  6),  from 
whicli  it  is  clear  that  the  divine  image  lies  inaliena'bly  in  ma7i''s  dei/ng. — The  divine 
image  is  not  ticofold  in  the  sense  that  in  the  words,  i.  26,  =ijni01?  ^JQ'?!:^  DHX  H^?;',? 
(LXX.  noi7/cnj/i(v  avOpuTTov  kot'  e'lKdva  r//j.ETepav  Kal  Ka6'  o/ioiuacv),  a  distinction  is  to 
be  made  between  d'7>*  (eIkuv)  and  ri1?3'^  (ofioiuaic)  ;  as,  for  example,  Justin  Martyr 
and  Irenseus  referred  the  first  to  the  bodily  form  and  the  second  to  the  spirit ;  or 
the  Alexandrian  Fathers  proposed  to  understand  /c«r'  tJ/cora  of  the  rational  basis 


146  THE    DOCTRIN'ES    AND    ORDINANCES    OF   MOSAlSAI.  [i>    (i8. 

of  man's  nature,  and  tlic  kuW  ouniumv  of  its  free  development  to  rileUociq.  The 
^JjQ^Dn^  in  the  passage  quoted  refers  rather  to  tlie  same  thing  as  tlie  'JP^^S  ;  it 
only  serves  to  fix  and  strengthen  the  meaning  of  the  hitter  ;  it  is  designed  to 
express  the  thouglit  tliat  tlie  divine  image  wluch  man  bears  is  really  one  corre- 
sponding to  the  original  pattern  (1).  In  the  omission  of  IJHIOIJD  in  the  passage 
ix.  6,  we  might  be  led  to  find  an  indication  that  the  divine  image  in  sinful  man 
was  no  longer  adequate  to  its  original  type.  Still,  ix.  6  simi:)ly  refers  to  i.  37,  in 
■which  the  no'^  is  not  repeated. 

But  now  what  is  to  he  nnderstood  by  the  divine  image  ?  We  are  certainly  not 
to  think  of  the  human  hochj  as  if  it  was  a  copy  of  the  divine  form,  for  Elohim,  the 
creative  God,  is  without  form  (comp.  §  4G).  "We  might  rather  say,  that  the  hu- 
man figure  was  to  be  so  formed  that  it  might  serve  to  represent  God  Himself  when 
He  revealed  Himself  ;  compare  also  Ezek.  i.  26,  and  especially  Ps.  xciv.  8-10 
might  be  here  adduced  ;  while,  on  the  contrary,  the  forms  of  animals  never  appear 
in  the  Old  Testament  as  a  vehicle  of  God's  self-manifestation,  but  were  representa- 
tive of  Jehovah  only  in  idolatrous  worship  (2).  The  nobility  which  appears  in 
the  bodily  figure  of  man  is  certainly  not  to  be  excluded  from  the  idea  of  the  divine 
imago,  but  it  is  undoubtedly  an  error  to  limit  the  latter  to  what  is  bodily.  It  is 
equally  erroneous  to  limit  the  divine  likeness  to  the  dominion  over  the  animal  world, 
as  the  Socinians  did.  This,  no  doubt,  is  also  contained  in  the  idea,  but  only  as  a 
consequence,  and  therefore  as  a  secondary  element ;  compare  Gen.  i.  2G,  and  the 
passage  ix.  G,  which  refers  back  to  the  latter.  The  divine  likeness  is  rather  to  be  re- 
ferred to  the  whole  dig  nit  if  of  man  OIT^)  "'^^^j  comp.  Ps.  viii.  G),  in  virtue  of  which 
human  nature  is  sharply  distinguished  from  that  of  the  beasts  ;  man  as  a  free 
being  is  set  over  nature,  and  designed  to  hold  communion  with  God,  and  to  he  his  rep- 
resentative on  earth.  The  first  or  negative  element,  the  wide  distinction  l^etween 
man  and  beast,  is  expressed,  first,  in  the  fact  that  although  animals  are  animate 
like  man,  and  possess  a  ^^}.  [soul],  yet  the  creation  of  man  as  a  living  being, 
according  to  Gen.  i.  2G,  ii.  7,  is  a  unique  and  peculiar  divine  act ;  and  further,  in 
the  circumstance  that  man  finds  no  corresponding  companionship  among  all  the 
animals  (ii.  20)  ;  lastly,  in  the  permission  to  man  to  kill  every  animal,  but  not 
another  man  (ix.  2  ff.),  and  this  because  of  the  divine  likeness  (comp.  §  108).  The 
prohibitions  in  Ex.  xxii.  18,  Lev.  xviii.  23,  xx.  15,  rest  on  this  recognition  of  the 
dignity  of  human  nature,  by  which  all  connection  of  man  with  beast— an  abomi- 
nation for  which  the  heathen  have  no  moral  abhorrence— was  to  be  iKinished  by 
the  death  of  the  criminal.  Thus  the  standpoint  of  the  religion  of  nature  is  aisolute- 
hj  denied  in  the  Old  Testament,  alike  in  the  idea  of  God  as  the  Holy  One,  and  in 
the  idea  of  man  as  God's  image. — The  second  or  2wsitive  element  is  indicated 
partly  in  the  main  passage  Gen.  i.  20,  and  partly  in  thTwliole  history,  chap.  ii. 
and  iii.  :  A  bQuig  is  to  stand  jit  thejiead  of  the  creatures,  invested  with  dominion 
over  thorn  (comp.  Ps.  viii.  7-0),  with  whom  Godjiolds  intercourse  as  with  His 
equal,  and  who  is  appointed,  like  God,  to  be  a  free  agent  (though  we  see  from  Gen. 
iii.  22,  comp.  ver.  5,  that  man  arrives  at  this  by  a  wrong  way).  To  the  ethical 
idea  of  God  corresponds  the  ethical  idea  of  man.  The  s])iritual  dominion  of  man 
over  the  beasts  is  indicated  in  the  giving  of  names.  Gen.  ii.  19  f.  In  regard  to  this 
dignity  of  man,  Ps.  viii.  G  says  that  man  was  made  little  lower  than  Elohim,  than 


g    no.]  MAN    IN"    RELATION   TO    SEX    AND    RACE.  147 

a  uumcii,  a  divine  being  (o).  The  book  of  Sirach  xvii.  3-G  (enumerating  domin- 
ion over  the  animals,  free  will,  speech,  sense,  etc.)  gives  an  explanation  of  the 
divine  image  which  is  on  the  whole  correct,  only  that  the  essential  feature,  that 
man  was  appointed  to  communion  with  God  in  virtue  of  his  likeness  to  Him,  is 
not  brought  forward  (4). 

(1)  My  view  is  that  this  is  the  correct  conception  of  Gen.  i.  26.  Umbreit  has 
understood  the  passage  quite  differently  in  the  book  cited  above,  p.  4  :  "  The  ? 
seems  rather  to  lessen  than  strengthen  the  meaning  of  ^  ;  man  is  to  appear  in 
the  image  of  God — not,  however,  in  complete  similarity  to  God's  image,  but  only 
after  His  likeness."— But  the  emphatic  repetition  of  D'riSx  0*7^?  ^^^Sv^  in  ver.  27 
does  not  agree  with  this  ;  on  this  view,  the  ^^'0'\3  would  rather  require  to  be 
repeated  in  explanation. 

( :*-)  On  the  view  that  divine  attributes  are  symbolized  in  the  cherubim,  see  on 
the  ordinances  of  worship,  §  119. 

(3)  The  LXX  translate  the  D'H^^?  in  Ps.  viii.  6  by  nap'  ayytlovg,  and  it  is 
certain  that  this  translation  is  not  exact.  But  it  is  generally  overlooked  that  the 
text  does  not  say  "  like  thee,"  or  at  least  "like  Jehovah,"  as  Schultz  {Alttest. 
Theol.  p.  594)  has  well  remarked.  The  idea.  Thou  hast  made  him  little  lower 
than  Jehovah,  would  not  have  been  possible  in  the  Old  Testament.  DT' '^  here 
stands  in  the  indefinite  and  general  term,  numen,  divine  being,  and  thus  far  the 
translation  of  the  LXX  is  not  exactly  incorrect. 

(4)  Upon  the  im2)ort  of  the  Old  Testament  idea  of  man,  see  Lutz,  Bibl.  Dogmatilc, 
p.  17.  He  characterizes  it  as  a  fact  of  the  very  greatest  importance  that  the  dif- 
ference petween  spirit  and  nature  is  here  so  fully  brought  out,  and  that  the  value 
of  spiritual  existence  is  not  placed  merely  in  the  power  of  thought,  but  in  moral 
purity.  [Comp.  also,  on  the  whole  Section,  Orelli,  Die  alttestamentl.  Weissagung 
von  der  VvUendung  des  Oottesreichs.  Wien  1882,  p.  93  ff.]. 


11.    MAN   IN   RELATION   TO   SEX   AND   RACE. 

§  69. 

1.  TTie  sexual  relation  of  man  a7id  womaii  is  originally  ordained  in  Gen.  i.  27 
(DHK  K"i3  n^pj?  iDi).  The  frequent  assertion  that,  according  to  Genesis,  man 
was  originally  created  androgynous,  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  passage  quoted, 
and  has  only  arisen  from  a  false  view  of  the  relation  of  chap.  i.  to  chap  ii.  Besides, 
even  chap.  ii.  teaches  nothing  about  a  man  who  was  at  once  man  and  woman, 
and  from  whom  man  and  woman  as  such  derived  their  being.  But  man  was 
created  first,  and  the  woman  by  being  taken  from  him  ;  as  also  the  passage  is  un- 
derstood in  1  Tim.  ii.  13,  1  Cor.  xi.  8  f.  It  agrees  with  this  that  the  perfection  of 
mankind  is  also  realized  in  a  man,  the  ihurepoQ  '  ASdfi,  and  that  the  avaffrdcrEuc  vloi 
are  not  spouses,  neither  marry  nor  are  given  in  marriage,  but  shall  be  laayyEloi, 
Matt.  xxii.  30,  Luke  xx.  36.  But  that  man's  existence  in  two  sexes  as  com- 
pared with  his  original  singleness  is  already  (as  has  been  maintained  even  in  mod- 
ern times)  the  beginning  of  the  fall,  is  contrary  to  the  natural  sense  of  Gen.  ii. 
ISflf. 

2.  According  to  this  passage,  marriage,  that  primitive  form  of  human  society 
from  which  all  other  forms  of  society  arise,  and  for  which  man  gives  up  the  others 
(comp.  ii.  24),  did  not  spring  from  the  blind  sway  of  natural  impulse,  but  from 


148  THE    DOCTRINES    AXD    OKDIXAXCES    OF    MOSAT8M.  [§    00. 

divine  institution.  Its  original  form  is  monogamy  (comp.  Matt.  xix.  G)  ;  and  the 
facFthat  the  bond  of  matrimony  is  represented  as  stronger  than  that  moral  rela- 
tion between  parents  and  children,  which  is  placed  so  high  in  the  Old  Testament, 
indicates  that  it  forms  not  simply  a  bodily  union  (^^X  ""t^l),  but  also  a  spiritual 
oneness.  Monogamy  appears  still  among  the  first  patriarchs  (Abraham,  Nahor, 
Isaac),  besides  which,  to  be  sure,  the  taking  of  concubines  is  allowable  (Gen.  xxii. 
24,  XXV.  6),  and  even  in  certain  circumstances  occurs  at  the  wish  of  the  legitimate 
spouse  herself  (xvi.  3,  xxx.  3,  9).  As  indicative  of  character,  polygamy  (Gen. 
iv.  19)  is  traced  to  the  Cainites.  The  law— we  here  simply  observe  (comp.  §  102,) 
— does  indeed  tolerate  polygamy,  but  does  not  sanction  it,  and,  moreover,  provides 
against  the  wrongs  that  easily  spring  from  it  ;  comp.  Ex.  xxi.  10,  Deut.  xxi.  15  fiP. 
Bigamy,  in  the  form  in  which  Genesis  represents  it  as  forced  on  Jacob,  namely, 
the  simultaneous  marriage  with  two  sisters,  was  afterwards  expressly  forbidden 
in  the  law,  Lev.  xviii.  18  (comp,  §  103,  with  note  3).  In  general,  monogamy  re- 
mained predominant  among  the  people  of  Israel ;  in  fact,  the  description  of  a 
wife  in  Prov.  xii.  4,  xix.  14,  xxxi.  10  ff.,  and  in  particular  the  prophetic  represen- 
tation of  the  covenant  between  Jehovah  and  His  people  as  marriage,  clearly  pre- 
supjiose  that  monogamy  is  the  rule  (1). — The  possession  of  children,  by  which  the 
house  is  built  up  (Gen.  xvi.  2,  xxx.  8,  etc.  ),  is  looked  on  as  a  divine  blessing  from 
Gen.  i.  28  onwards.  "  From  Jehovah  "  Eve  obtains  her  first  son,  iv.  1  (2)  ;  it  is 
God  who  in  Seth  gave  her  another  seed  instead  of  the  murdered  Abel,  iv.  25  ;  it 
is  always  God  who  makes  a  mother  fruitful  or  unfruitful,  xxix.  31,  xxx.  2,  and 
who  will  be  entreated  for  the  fruit  of  the  body,  xxv.  21,  xxix.  32  f.,  xxx.  17,  22. 
Unfruitfiilncss  is  a  heavy  divine  dispensation  (xvi.  2,  compare  1  Sam.  i.  6  f.),  in- 
deed a  dishonour  to  a  woman,  Gen.  xxx.  23  ;  childlessness  is  looked  upon  as  the 
greatest  misfortune  to  a  house.  Compare  also  such  passages  as  Ps.  cxxvii.  3  ff., 
cxxviii.  3  il.  (where  a  fruitful  wife  and  a  group  of  happy  and  growing  children  are 
designated  as  the  crown  of  earthly  joy),  etc.  To  hinder  fruitfulness  is  treated, 
Gen.  xxxviii.  9  f.,  as  an  abomination  worthy  of  death.  There  is  in  ancient  Israel 
no  trace  of  the  custom  of  killing  and  exposing  children  to  ward  off  the  increase 
of  family  cares,  which  is  so  widely  spread  in  heathenism  (3).  Thus  the  natural 
forms  of  human  society  are  sanctified  from  the  beginning  by  the  religious  point  of 
view  under  which  they  are  placed  (4). 

3.  All  manlcind  is_a_connected  race  of  Irothevs^  (if  hog  aijia-og,  Acts  xvii.  26). 
The  differences  between  nations  and  orders  of  men  do  not  rest  on  a  diversity  of 
physical  origin,  but  upon  the  law  of  God,  who  made  the  nations  to  differ  and 
set  them  their  boundaries  (Deut.  xxxii.  8),  and  who  reveals  His  retributive  ordi- 
nances even  in  their  natural  character  (Canaan,  Moab,  Amnion,  etc.). 

(1)  There  is  a  moral  element  contained  in  the  fact  that  conjugal  cohabitation 
is  characterized    as   a   knowing  (the  expression   is   certainly  "used    a  few  times 

euphemisticHlly  of  vicious  human  intermixture,  but  never  of  animal  cojjulation) 

namely,  that  it  is  "  an  act  of  personal  freedom  of  will,  and  not  the  work  of  blind 
natural  impulse,  and  contains  moral  self-decision  as  its  presupposition"  (Keil  on 
Gen.  iv.  1).     (;omp.  §  81. 

(2)  That  is,  the  communion  with  God  in  which  man  has  remained  even  after 
the  fall  is  testified  to  her  by  his  birth.  Gen.  iv.  1  refers  back  to  iii.  15  f.,  but 
.«till  the  passage  by  no  means  speaks  of  the  birth  of  the  God-man  (as  Luther  t'rans- 
l.ites  it,  "  I  have  the  man,  the  Lord"). 


§    70.]  CONSTITUENT    PAllTS    OF    MAN — BODY,  SOUL,  SPIRIT.  140 

(3)  Compare  Philo,  de  Spec,  leg.,  ed.  Mang.,  ii.  318.  This  is  also  represented 
by  heathen  writers  as  something  i)ecuiiar  ;  see  Tacitus,  Hist.,  v.  5. 

(4)  In  answer  to  those  who  compare,  for  example,  the  importance  of  the  family 
in  the  Old  Testament,  with  the  importance  which  the  Indian  religion  lays  on  the 
possession  of  descendants  because  the  condition  of  the  dead  ancestors  depends 
on  the  offerings  of  their  descendants,  it  is  enough  to  point  to  Hegel's  review  of 
W.  V.  Humboldt's  essay,  "  Ueber  die  unter  dem  Nanien  Bhagavad-Gita  bekannte 
Episode  des  Mahabharata"  (Hegel's  Werke,  xvi.  p.  368  11:.), 


III.    THE    CONSTITUENT   PARTS    OF   MAN    (1). 

§  70. 

Body,  Sold,  Spirit. 

Man,  like  all  beings  endowed  with  life,  originated  from  two  elements, — 
namely,  from  earthly  material  p3;»,  no"J>?j,  and  from  the  Divine  Spirit  (HII), 
Gen.  ii.  7,  comp.  Ps.  civ.  29  f. ,  cxlvi.  4.  As  in  general  1^*3^,  soul,  originates  in 
the  "^^5,  the  flesh,  by  the  union  of  spirit  with  matter,  so  in  particular  the  human 
soul  arises  in  the  human  body  by  the  breathing  of  the  divine  breath  (D"!n  riOlJ'J) 
into  the  material  frame  of  the  human  body.  But  although  the  life-spring  of  the 
ni"i,  from  which  the  soul  arises,  is  common  to  man  and  beast,  loth  do  not  orig- 
inate frovi  it  in  tlie  same  way.  The  souls  of  animals  arise,  like  plants  from  the 
earth,  as  a  consequence  of  the  divine  word  of  power,  Gen.  i.  24  (^^}.  T'^*>'7  ^X^^ 
n^^n).  Thus  the  creating  sjiirit  which  entered  in  the  beginning,  i.  2,  into  mat- 
ter, rules  in  them  ;  their  connection  with  the  divine  spring  of  life  is  through  the 
medium  of  the  common  terrestrial  creation.  But  the  Jtuman  soul  does  not 
spring  from  the  earth  ;  it  is  created  by  a  special  act  of  divine  inbreathing ;  see  ii. 
7  in  connection  with  i.  20.  The  human  body  was  formed  from  the  earth  before 
the  soul ;  in  it,  therefore,  those  powers  operate  which  are  inherent  to  matter 
apart  from  the  soul  (a  proposition  which  is  of  great  importance,  as  Delitzscli 
rightly  remarks).  But  the  human  body  is  still  not  an  animated  body  ;  the 
powers  existing  in  the  material  frame  are  not  yet  comprehended  into  a  unity  of 
life  ;  the  breath  of  life  is  communicated  to  this  frame  directly  from  God,  and  so 
the  living  man  originates.  According  to  the  view  of  many,  the  specific  differ- 
ence between  the  life  of  the  human  soul  and  that  of  animals  is  expressed  by  the 
use  of  the  term  HO^J  in  ii.  7  (2).  This,  however,  cannot  be  established,  for 
in  vii.  22  ("All  in  whose  nostrils  was  the  breath  of  life  died"),  the  exclusive 
reference  of  the  expression  H^^I'J  to  man  (as  merely  another  expression  for  /^ 
D^*"^  ,ver.  21),  coming  between  the  general  terms  comprehending  man  and  beast, 
which  stand  both  before  and  after  it,  is  not  natural.  In  Dent.  xx.  16,  Josh.  x. 
40,  xi.  11-14,  nnB'J-73  denotes  only  men  ;  but  in  these  passages  the  special  ref- 
erence of  the  expression  is  made  clear  by  the  connection,— in  the  passage  in  Deu- 
teronomy by  ver.  18,  and  in  the  book  of  Joshua  because  from  viii.  2  onward  the 
cattle  are  excepted  from  the  D"?.n.  Otherwise  one  might  as  well  prove  from  Josh. 
xi.  11,  where  yD^iyy-i"^  is  used  exclusively  of  man,  that  the  human  soul  alone  is 
called  1^§J.  But  it  is  correct  that  in  the  other  places  in  the  Old  Testament  in 
which  HDti'^  occurs  it  is  never  expressly  used  of  the  mere  animal  principle  of  life  ; 


150  TIIK    DOCTKI.VKS    AND   OK  1)1  NANCES    OF   MOSAISM.  [g    70. 

comp.  Isa.  xlii.  5,  Prov.  xx.  27,  Job  xxxii.  8,  and  Ps.  cl.  6  (Hn^JH  Si)).  Thus 
tlie  substance  of  the  Itiiman  soul  is  the  divine  spirit  of  life  uniting  itself  ir it] i  matter  ; 
the  spirit  is  not  merely  tlie  cause  by  reason  of  which  the  W^^  contaiiud  before- 
liaud  in  the  body  becomes  living,  as  Gen.  ii.  7  has  by  some  been  undeis^tood  (3). 
For  in  the  "I3;;  as  such,  in  the  structure  of  dust,  there  is,  according  to  the  Old 
Testament,  us  yet  no  tJ'p^,  even  latently.  This  is  first  in  the  "^^3,  in  the  flesh  ; 
but  the  earthly  materials  do  not  become  flesh  until  the  n^l  has  become  united 
with  it,  vi.  17,  vii.  15,  Job  xii.  10,  xxxiv.  14  f.  It  is  no  proof  against  this  (as 
has  further  been  objected)  that  in  some  passages  (Lev.  xxi.  11  ;  Num.  vi.  6),  the 
dead  body  from  which,  according  to  Gen.  xxxv.  18,  the  soul  has  departed,  is 
called  np  ti'p.^  before  it  crumbles  to  dust.  I  believe  this  expression  is  to  be  un- 
derstood as  a  euphemistic  metonymy,  just  as  we  speak  of  a  dead  person  without 
meaning  to  say  that  the  personality  lies  in  the  body  ;  or  perhaps  in  this  designa- 
tion of  a  dead  person  the  impression  is  expressed  which  the  corpse  makes  imme- 
diately after  death,  as  if  the  element  of  the  soul  had  not  yet  entirely  separated 
itself  (thus  Delitzsch)  (4).  But  as  the  soul  sprang  from  the  spirit,  the  n^l,  and 
contains  the  substance  of  the  spirit  as  the  basis  of  its  existence,  the  soul  exists  and 
lives  also  only  Inj  the  iioiccr  of  the  n^ll  ;  in  order  to  live,  the  soul  which  is  called  into 
existence  must  remain  in  connection  with  the  source  of  its  life.  "  God's  spirit 
made  me"  ('Ji^t^'iJ  /5<  ri'1),  says  Job,  xxxiii.  4,  "  and  the  breath  of  the  Almighty 
animates  me"  ('J'nil  ^"^'O  riTpiyjl^  with  the  imperfect).  The  first  sentence  ex- 
presses the  way  in  which  the  human  soul  is  called  into  being  ;  the  second,  the 
continuing  condition  of  its  subsistence.  By  the  withdrawing  of  the  n^T  the  soul 
becomes  wearied  and  weak,  till  at  last  in  death  it  becomes  a  shadow,  and  enters 
the  kingdom  of  the  dead  (comp.  §  78)  ;  while  by  the  nil  streaming  in,  it  receives 
vital  energy.  AVith  this  explanation  the  Old  Testament  usage  in  connection  with 
the  terms  1^3J  and  n^'l  becomes  intelligible.  In  the  soul,  which  sprang  from  the 
spirit,  and  exists  continually  through  it,  lies  the  individuality, — in  the  case  of 
man  his  personality,  his  self,  his  ego  ;  because  man  is  not  HH^  but  has  it — he  is  soul. 
Hence  only  "'i?'3J,  WpJ,  can  stand  for  egomet  ipse,  tu  ipse,  etc.,  not  'nn,  '10^^ 
etc.  (not  so  in  Arabic)  ;  hence  "soul"  often  stands  for  the  whole  jjerson,  Gen. 
xii.  5,  xvii.  14,  Ezek.  xviii.  4,  etc.  When  man  is  exhausted  by  illness,  his  nn 
is  corrupted  within  him.  Job  xvii.  1  (nSan  'Hn),  so  that  the  soul  still  continues  to 
vegetate  wearily.  "When  a  person  in  a  swoon  comes  to  himself  again,  it  is  said  his 
sjnrit  returns  to  him,  1  Sam.  xxx.  13  (inn  Hii/ni)  compared  with  Judg.  xv.  19. 
But  when  one  dies,  it  is  said  the  soul  departs,  Gen.  xxxv.  18  ;  his  soul  is  taken 
from  him,  1  Kings  xix.  4,  Jonah  iv.  3.  When  a  dead  jierson  becomes  alive  again, 
is  is  said  the  soul  returns  again,  1  Kings  xvii.  23  (i^S^  ^'P^V).  It  is  said  of  Jacob, 
whose  sunken  vital  energy  revived  when  he  found  his  son  again,  that  his  spirit 
was  quickened.  Gen.  xlv.  37  (Fin  'nn*.).  On  the  contrary,  of  one  who  is  preserved 
in  life  it  is  said,  ^^}.  nn'n,  [the  soul  lives]  Jer.  xxxviii.  17-20.  When  God 
rescues  one  from  the  jaws  of  death,  it  is  said,  Ps.  xxx.  4,  "  Thou  hast  brought  up 
my  soul  out  of  Sheol ;"  comp.  Ps.  xvi.  10  (5).— Man  perceives  and  thinks  by 
virtue  of  the  spirit  which  animates  him  (.Job  xxxii.  8  ;  Prov.  xx.  27)  ;  wherefore 
it  is  said  in  1  Kings  x.  5,  when  the  Queen  of  Sheba's  comprehension  was  brought 
to  a  stand,  that  "  there  was  no  spirit  in  her  more"  (tin  mj;  .13  n^n-t<S)  ;  but  the 


§    70.]  CONSTITUENT    PARTS    OF    MAN — BODY,  SOUL,  SPIRIT.  151 

perceiving  and  thinking  suhjeH  itself  is  the  ti'^.J  (conip.  §  71).  The  impulse  to  act 
proceeds  from  the  nn,  Ex.  xxxv.  21  ;  hence  one  who  rules  himself  is  a  inn2  7i;'0^ 
Prov.  xvi.  32.  But  the  acting  subject  is  not  the  nn,  but  the  '^^l ;  the  soul  is  the 
subject  which  sins,  Ezek.  xviii.  4,  etc.  Love  and  attachment  are  of  course  a 
tiling  of  the  soul,  Gen.  xxxiv.  3  (iJ^SJ  pinni)  and  ver.  8  Ot^pJ  HpK'T.)  ;  and  so  in 
Cant.  V.  6,  the  words  of  the  beloved,  HXr  "i^pJ,  cannot  be  explained,  "  I  was  out 
of  my  senses"  (as  De  Wette  thinks),  but  the  bride  feels  as  if  her  very  personality 
had  gone  forth  from  her  to  follow  and  seek  her  beloved.  In  many  cases,  indeed, 
g/aj  and  nn  stand  indifferently,  according  as  the  matter  is  looked  upon— that  is, 
to  use  Ilofmann's  words  {Sc/iriftbeweis,  i.  p.  396),  according  as  "the  personality 
is  named  after  its  special  individual  life,  or  after  the  living  power  which  forms 
the  condition  of  its  special  character."  Thus  it  maybe  said  on  the  one  hand, 
"Why  is  thj  spirit  so  stubborn?"  (n"JD  ^nn  Ht-nD),  1  Kings  xxi.  5  ;  on  the  other 
hand,  "Why  are  thou  so  bowed  down,  O  my  soulP''  ('t^'SJ  'Pnirii^B-nD),  Ps.  xlii. 
12.  Of  impatience  it  may  be  said,  "The  soul  is  short"  (l^?^  "^VpJ^l),  Num. 
xxi,  4,  and  "shortness  of  the  spirW  (nn  "iVp),  Ex.  vi.  9  ;  compare  Job  xxi.  4. 
Trouble  of  heart  is  "bitterness  of  the  spiriV  (Hl"^  ^"^'^),  Gen.  xxvi.  35  ;  and  of 
the  soul  ('C:'3J  ion),  Job  xxvii.  2,  it  is  said  inn  Di^sni,  Gen.  xli.  8,  and  "I^'aJ 
ixp  nbn^J,  Ps.  vi.  4.  Compare  with  this  in  particular  the  climax  in  Isa.  xxvi. 
9  (6).  From  all  this  it  is  clear  that  the  QkL Testament  does  not  teach  a  trichotomy 
of  the_human_being  in  the  sense  of  body,  soul,  and  spirit,  as  being  originally  three 
co-ordinate  elements  of  man  ;  rather  tlTe  iPhdtfTnan  is  included  in  the  "^^^  and  I^pJ 
(body  and  soul),  which  sjmiig  from  the  union  of  the  nn  icith  matter,  Ps.  Ixxxiv.  3, 
Isa.  X.  18  ;  comp.  Ps.  xvi.  9.  The  T}'i'^  forms  in  part  the  substance  of  the  soul  in- 
dividualized in  it,  and  in  part,  after  the  soul  is  established,  the  poicer  and  endow- 
ments which  flow  into  it  and  can  be  withdrawn  from  it  (7),  (8). 

(1)  Besides  the  books  already  quoted  in  §  67,  cf.  Hofmann,  Weissagung  und  Er- 
fiillung,  i.  pp.  17-25  ;  my  Commentationes  ad  theologiam  hiblicani  pertinentes,  1846, 
p.  11  ff. ;  II.  A.  Hahn,  V.  T.  sententia  de  natura  hominis  exposita,  1846;  several 
sections  of  Bottcher's  comprehensive  but  unfinished  work,  De  inferis  rebusque  post 
mortemfuturis,  i.,  1846  ;  in  Rerzog's  Beal-Encyklop.,  the  article  "  Geist  desMensch- 
en,"  by  Auberlen  [with  additions  in  the  2d  ed.  by  Cremer]  ;  and  the  article 
"  Herz  im  bibl.  Sinn,"  by  myself,  [with  add.  in  2d  ed.  by  Delitzsch  ;  also 
Wendt,  Die  Begriffe  Fleisch  unci  Geist  im  bibl.  Sprachgebrauch,  Ootha,  1878.] 

(2)  This  is  the  view  of  several  Rabbins,  and  of  Beck  and  Hahn  among 
modern  writers.     There  were  even  Rabbins  who  connected  the  word  nrp^J  with 

(3)  Thus  Bottcher  and  others  ;  the  former  in  a  review  of  my  Commentationes, 
in  the  Jenaer  Liter aturzeiiung,  1846,  No.  254  f.,  p.  1013  ff. 

(4)  Delitzsch,  System  of  Biblical  Psychology,  p.  524. 

(5)  Ps.  xvi.  10  :   "  Thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  to  Sheol  ;"  compare  also  §  78. 

(6)  Isa.  xxvi.  9:  "In  n)y  soul  I  lung  after  Thee  (lO'?**  "?^?^)  ;  yea  with  my 
spirit  ("nn-f^X)  ia  my  inward  parts  I  seek  Thee  (T?n'^'*^)."  The  second  sentence 
does  not  say  the  same  as  the  tirst,  but,  as  shown  by  ^N,  it  ascends  higher — "  Yea, 
with  my  spirit,"  with  the  whole  strength  of  my  inward  life. 

(7)  In  all  ages  a  few  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  have  been  supposed  by  some 
to  teach  a  pre-existence  of  the  soul.  The  main  passages  adduced  are  Ps.  cxxxix. 
15  and  .Job  i.  21.  But  in  the  former  passage,  an  abbrevhtted  comparison  is  with- 
out   doubt  to  be  assumed,      "  When  I  was   formed  in  tlie  depths  of   the  earth," 


I63  THE    DOCTRINES    AND    OKDTNANCES    OF   MOSAlSM.  [§    71. 

stands  for  "  in  such  concealment,  in  a  place  as  dark  as  the  depths  of  the  earth" 
(description  of  the  mother's  womb).  In  Job  i.  21,  "  Naked  came  I  forth  from 
my  mother's  womb,  and  naked  do  I  return  thither,"  is  a  kind  of  zeugma.  The 
correspondence  is  between  the  mother's  womb  in  the  proper  sense  and  the  mother's 
womb  in  the  figurative  sense,  namelj%  the  motlier  earth  ;  for  the  condition  before 
birth,  and  the  condition  in  the  grave  and  in  the  kingdom  of  the  dead,  correspond. 
— On  tlie  other  hand,  m  the  book  of  Wisdom,  viii,  20,  there  is  undeniably  a 
thought  borrowed  from  Plato. 

(8)  [According  to  Wendt  (p.  27)  the  view  given  m  the  text  of  the  relation  of 
spirit  and  soul  rests  upon  an  unauthorized  assumption,  viz.,  that  the  Old  Testa- 
ment writers  had  one  and  the  same  psychological  system.  But  what  is  assumed 
IS,  simply  the  existence  of  a  distinct  conception,  a  consciousness  of  the  being  of  the 
.'jpirit  and  the  soul  and  of  the  relation  of  the  two,  and  consequently  a  few  psycho- 
logical intuitions.  This  assumption  is  sustained  by  the  usus  loquevdi  pointed 
out  in  the  text.  According  to  Wendt,  both  ideas  cover  the  same  ground, 
namely,  tlie  vital  energies  of  the  human  spirit,  but  apprehended  from  different 
points  of  view.  Regarded  from  the  religious  point  of  view,  as  not  earthly  but  divine, 
they  are  called  spirit:  from  the  anthropological,  as  presenting  the  immaterial  na- 
ture of  man  in  opposition  to  his  material  bodily  nature,  they  are  called  soul. 
That  under  certain  circumstances  the  words  may  cover  the  same  ground  is  sliown 
in  the  text.  But  in  general  such  is  not  the  case.  This  is  evident  from  the  fact 
that  in  the  Old  Testament  man  himself  is  designated  as  soul,  but  not  as  spirit. 
What  Wendt  says  in  comparing  "spirit"  and  "heart"  (see  especially  p.  31): 
"  spirit  is  the  mental  energy  which,  partly  as  disposition,  partly  as  character,  im- 
presses its  distinct  form  upon  all  individual  utterances  of  feeling,  thought,  and 
will,"  sliows  clearly  enough  that  "spirit"  covers  nioi-e  ground  than  "soul." 
The  antithesis  of  the  religious  and  anthropological  mode  of  thought  is  here  quite 
remote,  and  yet  we  could  not,  in  expressing  what  belongs  here,  instead  of  spirit 
say,  soul.  The  correctness  of  this  antithesis  is  quite  questionable.  The  attempt 
to  defend  it  by  appealing  to  Job  xii.  10  is  not  exactly  happy.  And  how  can  this 
antithesis  be  maintained  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  soul  in  numberless  passages 
appears  as  the  subject  of  religious  feelings  and  acts  (cf .  §  71)  ?  Comp.  also  against 
Wendt  the  art.  of  Cremer  already  mentioned,  whose  position,  "that  the  spirit  is 
the  principle  of  the  soul,  immanent  in  the  life  of  the  individual,  but  not  the  di- 
vine principle  of  life,  identical  with  it,"  agrees  with  the  view  presented  la  the 
text.     See  also  Prof.  C.  M.  Mead,  The  Soul  Here  and  Hereafter,  1879.— D.J      ~ 

§71. 

The  Heart,  and  its  Relation  to  the  Soul. 

The  soul  of  man  has  a  double  sphere  of  life  :  first,  it  is  anUna,  that  on  which 
rests  the  life  belonging  to  the  senses,  "ib^n  V}p}^  the  soul  of  the  flesh  in  the  more 
limited  sense.  As  such  it  acts  in  the  blood,  and  supplies  life  to  the  body  through 
tlie  blood  ;  hence  the  proposition,  Lev.  xvii.  11,  Kin  U'^^l  "ii|^|n  IJ/3J  "The  soul 
of  the  flesh  is  in  the  blood"  (1) ;  indeed,  it  is  said  directly,  ' '  The  blood  is  the  soul, ' ' 
Gen.  ix.  4,  Lev.  xvii.  14,  Deut.  xii.  23.  Still  this  does  not  mean  that  the  soul  of 
the  flesh  does  not  act  also  in  respiration  and  nourishment.  The  fundamental 
meaning  of  ^i)\  is  "  that  which  breathes,"  "the  breath,"  Job  xii.  13;  and 
hence,  as  some  passages  speak  of  a  streaming  forth  of  the  soul  in  the  blood  (Isa.  liii. 
12,  and  elsewhere),  so  in  others  the  breathing  forth  of  the  soul  is  spoken  of,  Jer.  xv. 
1),  Job  xxxi.  39,  etc.  But  secondly.  i^2:.  is  not  simply  anima,  not  simply  the 
principle  of  life  belonging  to  the  senses,  but  it  is  at  the  same  time  animus]— the 
srilject  of  all  the  acts  of  knowing,  feeling,  and  willing,  and  especially  the  subject  of 


§    71.]  THE    HEART,  AND   ITS    RELATION    TO   THE   SOUL.  153 

those  acts  and  states  of  man  that  refer  to  his  communion  with  God— Deut.  iv.  29, 
vi.  5,  Isa.  Ixi.  10,  Ps.  xix.  8,  xlii.  2  sq.,  and  numberless  other  passages  (2). 

In  both  its  relations,  a^uniiiia,  and  animus,  the  soul  centres  in  the  heart,  37  or  ^^1., 
which  often  interchanges  with  y^^. ;  which,  however,  designates  in  a  wider  sense 
the  whole  cavity  of  the  breast,  with  the  intestines.  The  heart,  as  the  central 
organ  of  the  circulation  of  the  blood  (3),  forms  the  focus  of  the  life  of  the  body  ; 
whence,  for  example,  the  strengthening  of  the  body  by  nourishment  is  called 
supporting  the  heart,  ^S  lilD,  Gen.  xviii.  5,  Judges  xix.  5,  Ps.  civ.  15  ;  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  exhaustion  of  physical  vital  energy  is  designated  as  a  drying  up 
or  melting  away  of  the  heart,  Ps.  cii.  5,  xxii.  15,  and  the  like.  But  the  heart 
is  also  the  centre  of  all  spiritual  functions.  Everything  spiritual,  whether  belong- 
ing to  the  intellectual,  moral,  or  pathological  sphere,  is  appropriated  and 
assimilated  by  man  in  the  heart  as  a  common  meeting-2:)lace,  and  is  again  set  in 
circulation  from  the  heart.  All  vital  motions  of  the  soul  proceed  from  the  heart, 
and  react  upon  it,  so  that  the  declaration,  Prov.  iv.  23,  "Above  all  that  thou 
hast  to  guard,  keep  thy  heart  ;  for  from  it  are  the  issues  of  life,"  is  universal.  In 
particular,  the  heart  (the  |^?  'IT),  Prov.  xx.  27)  is  the  place  in  which  the 
process  of  self-consciousness  goes  on, — in  which  the  soul  is  at  home  with  itself, 
and  is  conscious  of  all  its  doing  and  suffering  as  its  own  (4).  The  heart, 
therefore,  is  also  the  organ  of  the  conscience.  Job  xxvii.  6.  But  in  general,  when 
a  man  turns  his  thoughts  within,  or  appropriates  anything,  designs  anything, 
is  busy  with  any  plan  or  resolution,  this  happens  in  the  heart  (5).  Hence  ex- 
pressions such  as  nn"?  Dj;  ITT,  Deut.  viii.  5  ;  i^V?^  ^'L^n,  Isa.  xliv.  19,  etc.;  "i??5$ 
uS-b^,— this  even  of  God,— Gen.  viii.  21;  'f^.  D;*,  '33'73,  3^-'?^?  DT,  33^  nv^is::^ 
'3^3  n;n,  Ps.  Ixxiii.  7  ;  ::h-'2'^2'Q,  Prov.  xvi.  1.  But  the  heart  is  the  organ  not 
simply  of  those  acts  of  consciousness  which  are  purely  inward,  but  also  of  the 
act  of  Icnowing  in  general,  which  is  essentially  an  appropriation,  so  that  37  has 
often  exactly  the  meaning  of  intellect,  insight  ;  for  example,  337  ''Jf'^5*,  viri 
cordati,  Job  xxxiv.  10  ;  37-|''N  =  7DD,  Jer.  v.  21,  comp.  Prov.  xvii.  16,  37  3n'i, 
1  Kings  V.  9  (6),  also  of  God;  3^  n3  "T33,  Job  xxxvi,  5. 

Now,  because  the  heart  is  the  central  point  of  the  person's  life,  the  work-place 
for  the  personal  appropriation  and  assimilation  of  everything  spiritual,  the  moral 
and_religions  condition  of  man  lies  in  the  heart.  Only  what  enters  the  heart 
possesses  moral  worth,  and  only  wnat  coines  from  the  heart  is  a  moral  product. 
A  man's  whole  life  as  an  individual,  as  well  as  all  his  separate  personal  acts, 
derive  their  character  and  moral  significance  from  the  quality  and  contents 
of  the  heart,  in  virtue  of  the  necessary  connection  which  subsists  between  the 
centre  and  the  periphery  (7).  Because  of  this,  man  is  characterized  by  his  hcai-t 
in  all  his  habitual  and  moral  attributes.  We  read  in  1  Kings  v.  12,  Prov.  x.  8, 
etc.,  of  a  wise  heart  ;  in  Ps.  li.  12,  of  a  pure  heart ;  in  Gen.  xx.  5  f.,  etc.,  of  an 
honest  and  righteous  heart ;  and  so,  on  the  other  hand,  in  Ps.  ci.  4,  of  a  perverse 
heart  ;  in  Jer.  iii.  17,  etc.,  of  a  wicked  and  stubborn  heart  ;  and  in  Ezek.  xxxviii. 
2,  etc.,  of  a  haughty  heart  (8).  The  doctrine  of  the  37  "(X?.,  the  devising  of 
the  heart,  is  set  forth  in  Genesis  viii.  21,  in  opposition  to  the  superficial  doctrine 
which  makes  man  in  a  moral  sense  an  indifferent  being,  in  whose  choice 
|t  lies   e^ch   moment   to  be  either  good   or  bad  ;  and   so   this  book  represents 


lu-i  THE    DOCTRINES   AND    ORDINANCES   OF   MOSAISM.  [§    71. 

sin  as  a  principle  whicli  has  ponctmted  to  the  centre,  and  from  thence  cor- 
rupts the  whole  circuit  of  life  (9).  Accordingly  the  human  heart  is  character- 
ized in  Jer.  xvii.  9  as  "deceitful  (3p;;,  properly  rugged,  the  opposite  of  "!??;) 
above  all  things,  and  mortally  diseased  (t^)*'),"  so  that  God  alone  (but  He  com- 
pletely, Prov.  XV.  11)  is  able  to  fathom  the  depths  of  its  perverseness  ;  and  hence 
the  prayer  in  Ps.  cxxxix.  23  f.  Hence  all  rcvelat i<m  addresses  itself  to  the  Amri, 
even  the  revelation  of  law,  Deut.  vi.  6  ;  for  it  demands  love  to  God  from  the 
vfhole  hedH,  and,  starting  from  this  centre,  also  from  the  whole  soul  ;  compare  xi. 
18.  The  condition  of  insusceptibility  for  what  is  divine  is  called  the  uncircumcised 
heart  (^IX),  Lev.  xxvi.  41,  Deut.  x.  16,  comp.  Ezek.  xliv.  9  ;  and  callousness  in 
sin  is  a  hardening,  an  obduracy  of  the  heart— Ex.  iv.  21,  and  many  other  pas- 
sages (10).  And  because  of  this  the  work  of  revelation  is  directed  to  renewing 
man  from  the  heart ;  and  its  aim,  Deut.  xxx.  6,  is  to  circumcise  the  heart — to  estab- 
lish God's  will  within  the  heart,  Jer.  xxxi.  33. — Also  on  man's  side  the  process 
of  salvation  begins  in  the  heart.  Faith,  in  which  man's  personal  life  in  its  deepest 
basis  takes  a  new  direction,  belongs  entirely  to  the  sphere  of  the  heart,  and  is  de- 
scribed as  a  making  fast  (from  the  root-meaning  of  j'pN';^),  a  making  strong  (fOXn^ 
Ps.  xxvii.  14,  xxxi.  25),  a  staying  of  the  heart  (compare  especially  Ps.  cxii.  7 
f.)  on  that  foundation  which  is  God,  the  337  ll^f  Himself,  Ps.  Ixxiii.  26  ;  compare 
the  same  view  in  the  New  Testament — for  example,  Rom.  x.  9  f..  Acts  viii.  37. — 
On  the  contrary,  yrawies  of  mind  and  emotions  are  just  as  often  predicated  of  the 
soul  as  of  the  heart,  according  as  they  are  understood  as  something  which  em- 
braces the  whole  personality  of  man,  or  as  a  state  ruling  his  inmost  heart.  In  the 
Old  Testament,  grief  and  care,  fear  and  terror,  joy  and  confidence,  tranquillity 
and  contentment,  are  referred  sometimes  to  the  heart  and  sometimes  to  the  soul ; 
compare  the  union  of  the  two  expressions,  Deut.  xxviii.  65,  and  also  Prov.  xii.  25, 
Eccles.  xi.  10,  Jer.  xv.  16,  1  Sam.  ii.  1,  Ps.  xxviii.  7,  on  the  one  hand,  and  Ex. 
xxiii.  9  (where  Luther  translates  ^p).  by  heart),  Ps.  vi.  4,  xlii.  6  f.,  Isa.  Ixi.  10,  Ps. 
Ixii.  2,  cxxxi.  2,  cxvi,  7,  on  the  other.  In  these  points  usage  has  established  peculiar 
distinctions,  so  that,  for  example,  as  a  rule,  T"19  smd  its  derivatives  are  connected 
v/ith  l^?^,  and  not^  and  its  derivatives  with  37,  etc.  (11).  However,  ii'3J,  and 
not  37,  is  generally  used  if  the  acts  spoken  of  are  those  in  which  the  subject  is  in 
motion  toward  an  object.  Jer.  iv.  19  is  instructive  in  this  connection  (12).  But 
it  is  specially  to  be  remarked  that  in  the  idea  of  ti'?^.,  the  character  of  desire  is 
obviously  that  which  predominates  and  reaches  farthest  ;  and  here  the  connection 
of  desire  with  the  breath  and  with  breathing  must  not  be  overlooked.  Cer- 
tainly the  impulses  by  which  man  allows  himself  to  be  determined  (comp.  Ex.  xxxv. 
5,  xxii.  29),  the  controlling  purpose  which  rules  him,  the  views  which  he  clierishes, 
the  desire  which  he  inwardly  cherishes,  are  matters  of  the  heart  (com)).  Ezek. 
xi.  21,  XX.  10,  xxxiii.  31  ;  Deut.  xi.  10  ;  Job.  xxxi.  7,  ix.  27  ;  Ps.  Ixvi.  18  ;  Prov. 
vi,  25)  ;  but  as  soon  as  the  tendency  of  the  will  extends  to  the  utterance  of  the 
desire,  K/?)^.  generally  comes  in,  and  the  stem  n]«,  together  with  its  derivatives,  is 
almost  exclusively  connected  with  1^?^,  (1:5).  Indeed,  it  is  w^ell  known  that  ^^l 
is  sometimes  placed  for  desire  or  inclination  itself  ;  compare  in  particular,  Eccles, 
vi.  7,  9,  Prov.  xiii.  2  (14). 

(1)  Compare  the  theory  of  sacrifice,  §  137, 


§n.] 


THE   HEART,  AND   ITS    RELATION   TO   THE    SOUL.  155 


(2)  The  Old  Testament  and  tlie  Homeric  anthropology  offer  parallels  of  the 
highest  interest,  but  here  there  is  a  remarkable  difference  between  the  two  :  the 
Homeric  i>vx'?  is  impersonal, — simply  the  sensuous  principle  of  life  :  tlie  spiritual 
elements  have  their  seat  in  the  (ppsve^.  Compare  Kagelsbach,  Homerische  Theol.  p. 
380  ff.,and  my  Commentationes,  p.  11  f. 

(3)  The  pitcher  at  the  fountain  of  blood,  Eccles  xii.  6.  See  on  this  passage 
Delitzsch,  ^.f'.,  p.  270  f. 

(4)  "In  corde  actiones  animae  human  as  ad  ipsam  redeunt, "  says  Roos,  Fun- 
dam,  psychol.  n\  s.  scr.,  p.   99,  concisely  and  strikingly. 

(5)  Roos,  I.e.:  "  Dum  ipsa  [aniraa]  sibi  aliquid  ostendit  ac  proponit,  ad  cor 
suum  loqui  dicitur.  Uum  suarum  actionum  sibi  conscia  est,  et  illarum  innocen- 
tiam  vel  turj)itudii)em  ipsa  sentit,  id  ad  cor  refertur.  Anima  humana  ut  il>vxf'/ 
suavia  appetit,  ut  ispiritus  scrutatur,  etc.  Sed  quatenus  cor  hniet,  ipsa  -novit,  se  hoc 
agere,  et  ideas  rejie.vas  habet."" 

(6)  By  this  Ps.  cxix.  32  is  to  be  explained  (differently  by  Hengstenberg), 
and  similarly  the  passage  2  Kings  v.  26,  which  has  been  understood  in  so  many 
different  ways.  The  LXX  often  put  I'olif  for  37,  Ex.  vii.  23,  Isa.  x.  7,  etc. 
Compare,  too,  on  the  close  connection  of  the  two  notions.  Beck,  Christl.  Lehrwis- 
sensrhaft,  i.  p.  233.  There  are  indeed  exceptions.  The  soid,  too,  is  put  as  the 
subject  of  insight,  Prov.  xix.  2,  Ps.  cxxxix.  14  ;  the  thoughts  that  move  man 
are  called  a  speaking  and  meditating  of  the  soul.  Lam.  iii.  20,  24,  1  Sam.  xx. 
4  ;  men  form  imaginations  in  the  soul,  Esth.  iv.  13,  and  cherish  plans  there,  Ps. 
xiii.  3,  etc.  Still  there  are  comparatively  very  few  such  passages  (see  Delitzsch, 
I.e.,  p.  234)  ;  and  it  would  seem  sometimes,  as  in  the  last-cited  passage,  that  the 
mention  of  the  soul  is  occasioned  mainly  by  the  parallelism,  which  demands  a 
second  expression. 

(7)  The  divine  judgment  being  passed  on  man  not  according  to  what  he  ap- 
pears to  be,  but  according  to  what  lie  is,  is  described  as  a  looking  on  the  heart,  1 
Sam.  xvi.  7,  Jer.  xx.  12  ;  a  knowing  and  trying  the  heart,  1  Kings  viii.  39  ;  Prov. 
xvii.  3  ;  Ps.  vii.  10,  xvii.  3  ;  Jer.  xi.  20. — Even  of  God  it  is  said.  Lam.  iii.  33, 
"He  does  not  afflict  men  1370,"  in  order  to  express  the  difference  between  that 
which  is  rooted  in  His  being  and  his  appearance  as  apprehended  by  num. 

(8)  In  all  such  connections  t^?^.  is  not  readily  used.  The  LXX  are  not  so 
rigorous  in  this  usage  ;  conip.  Bottcher,  De  iiiferis,  §  41  (but  there  fire  vaiious  read- 
ings in  some  passages  there  <|Uoted).  The  usage  in  the  book  of  AVisdoni  is  pecul- 
iar ;  it  speaks  of  holy  souls  (vii.  27),  and  on  the  contrary  of  KaKorexror  i/'''A''/> 
into  which  wisdom  does  not  enter,  and  of  evOvt?/^  i'l'xK  0^'-  3,  etc.).  This 
usage  is  connected  with  the  writer's  peculiar  theory  of  the  differences  oif  natural 
character  in  souls,  indicated  in  viii.  19. 

(9  and  10)  See  the  doctrine  of  sin,  §  75  and  §  76. 

(11)  The  passage  Prov.  xiv.  10  is  interesting  in  this  connection:  "The  heart 
knoweth  the  sadness  of  its  soul  ;  in  its  joy  also  may  no  stranger  mingle." 

(12)  According  to  Jer.  iv.  19.  the  soul  hears  the  tumult  of  war,  and  on  this 
the  fieart  is  moved  by  sorrow  and  fear. 

(13)  3*7  r\ixn  is  found  only  in  Ps.  xxi.  3.  Compare,  further,  passages  like  Ps. 
Ixxxiv.  3.  cxix.  20,  81,  Isa.  xxvi.  8  f. 

(14)  By  this,  'dii?,  3'n-;n,  Isa.  v.  14,  Hab.  ii.  5,  and  C??.^  3n"),  Prov.  xxviii. 
25,  are  to  be  explained  ;  the  latter  is  different  from  3*7  Dn'i,  Ps.  ci.  5,  which  Ewald 
incorrectly  translates  "of  greedy  heart,"  since,  like  Prov.  xxi.  4,  it  designates 
puffed  up,  conceited  security. — In  conclusion,  the  question  would  still  remain  to 
be  taken  into  consideration,  in  what  relation  the  heart,  as  the  focus  and  centre  of 
the  spiritiud  life  of  the  soul,  stands  to  the  heart  as  the  centre  of  physical  life.  But 
this  question  can  be  satisfactorily  discussed  only  in  connection  with  a  comprehen- 
sive examination  of  the  relation  of  the  body  and  soul  in  general.  Here  it  can  only 
be  briefly  remarked,  that  according  to  Holy  Writ  there  is  not  merely  a  parallelism 
between  the  body  and  soul,  in  virtue  of  which  what  is  bodily  stands  simply  as  the 
synabol  of  spiritual  occurrences,  but  as  the  soul  which  supports  the  persoaality 


156  thp:  doctrines  and  oudinances  of  mosaism.  [§  72. 

is  the  same  as  tliat  wliich  rules  in  the  blood  and  in  the  breath,  so  also  in  its 
liigher  functions  the  bodily  organs  have  a  rt-al  share.  Now,  with  the  well-known 
ex|)erience  that  sillections  and  pasi-ions  aftVct  the  intestines,  that  the  beating  of 
the  lieart  in  particular  is  nioditied  bj'  ail  passionate  excitement,  no  one  will  find 
simple  tropes  where  the  Psalmist  says  (Ps.  xxxix.  4),  "My  heart  was  hot  within 
me  ;"  or  Jer.  xx.  9,  "It  was  in  my  heart  like  a  burning  lire  ;"  comp.  iv.  19,  xxiii. 
9.  But  there  are  two  remarkable  points  in  biblical  anthropology  :  first,  the  spe- 
cific relation  in  which  the  Holy  Scriptures  j)lace  separate  parts  of  the  intestines  to 
specific  emotions  (see  what  Delitzsch,  I.e.  213  H.  says  on  the  biblical  meaning  of 
D'PDI,  the  liver,  the  kidneys);  and  secondly,  the  way  in  which  the  heart,  and  not 
the  head  and  the  brain,  is  referred  to  in  connection  with  acts  of  knowing  and 
willing  (the  book  of  Daniel  is  the  first  to  speak  of  "the  visions  of  the  liead"). 
It  is  well  known  that  the  view  of  the  entire  ancient  world  agrees  with  the  Bible 
in  this.  As  regards  the  Homeric  doctrine  {e.g.  the  meaning  of  nyp.,  Kpadlr/),  com- 
pare Nagelsbach's  i/o??2e/'.  Thcol.  1st  ed.  p.  332  ff.,  2d  ed.  p.  384  ff. ;  remember 
also  the  Roman  usage  of  words  like  cordatus,  recordari,  vecors,  excors,  and  others  ; 
compare  in  particular  Cicero,  Tusc.  i.  9,  18,  and  also  Plato,  Phml.  c.  45,  and  the 
commentators  on  this  passage,  etf.  The  spiritual  significance  of  the  heart  cannot — 
as  Delitzsch,  I.e.,  p.  307  ff.,  rightly  maintains — be  simply  referred  to  the  fact  that 
the  heart  is  the  centre  of  the  circulation  of  the  blood.  The  way  in  which  De- 
litzsch, p.  301  f.,  has  adduced  the  phenomena  of  somnambulism  in  illustration  of 
the  matter  deserves  notice  ;  but  physiology  has  hitherto  given  almost  no  answer 
to  the  questions  that  here  suggest  themselves. 


SECOND  CHAPTER. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  MAN    IN  REFERENCE  TO   THE  CONTRADICTORY 
ELEMENTS  WHICH  ENTERED  BY  SIN  INTO  ITS  DEVELOPMENT. 

I.   THE   PKIMITIVE    STATE   OP   MAN. 


The  constitution  of  man  in  his  primitive  state  we  learn  in  part  from  the  sec- 
ond chapter  of  Genesis,  and  in  part  by  arguing  backward  from  the  change  oc- 
casioned by  sin.  Thus  the  following  points  are  reached  :  innocence  and  child- 
lilce  intercourse  with  God,  harmonions  relation  to  nature,  and,  conditionally,  exemption 
fromdcatlK 

1.  Man  was  created  good.  Gen.  i.  31— that  is,  conformed  to  the  divine  aim.  But 
as  the  good  in  him  is  not  yet  developed  into  free  self-determination,  he  does  not 
as  yet  know  the  good  as  good  (compare  iii.  5).  This  is  the  condition  of  child-like 
Tiaivete  and  innocence  (compare  Deut.  i.  39).  It  is  characterized  in  Gen.  ii.  25  by 
the  circumstance  that  shame  was  not  yet  awakened.  Hence,  in  the  first  place,  the 
conception  of  the  original  state  as  a  created  condition  of  sapientia  and  sanctitas 
contradicts  the  statement  in  Genesis  ;  it  would  be  much  more  in  the  sense  of  the 
Old  Testament  to  say,  asEccles.  vii.  29  expresses  it :  "God  made  man  IK/;  (rio-ht)." 
But  in  the  second  place,  the  view  that  the  original  state  was  only  an  absence 
of  actual  sin,  in  the  sense  either  of  a  state  of  pure  indifference,  or  a  state  in 
which  the  evil  was  already  latent,  so  that  in  the  Fall  the  disposition  which  already 


§    72.]  THE    PRIMITIVE    STATE    OF    MAN".  157 

existed  in  man  only  came  forth,  is  equally  irreconcilable  with  Genesis.  The  ac- 
count of  the  origin  of  sin  in  Gen.  iii.  is  thorou^jhly  opposed  to  all  doctrines  ac- 
cording to  which  the  evil  in  man  is  to  be  looked  on  as  a  necessary  factor  in  man's 
development  (see  §  73). 

3.  In  the  primitive  condition,  man  lives  in  undisturbed  and  peaceful  union 
with  nature  and  with  God.  The  latter  is  made  especially  clear  by  the  contrast 
in  Gen.  iii.  8  ff.,  in  which  it  is  implied  that  the  fear,  which  in  man's  present 
condition  predominates  in  his  relation  to  the  Divinity,  is  not  the  normal  relation. 
The  peaceful  relation  of  man  with  nature  is  taught  partly  in  the  description  of 
the  life  in  Paradise  in  general,  and  partly  in  the  cbntrast  between  the  present  re- 
lation of  man  to  nature  and  his  condition  before  sin,  since  man  must  now  make 
nature  of  service  to  him  by  toiling  and  struggling  (iii.  17  ff.,  v.  29),  and  since 
he  exercises  his  dominion  over  the  animals  by  deeds  of  violence  and  destruction 
of  life,  ix.  2  f,  (a  passage  which  stands  in  contrast  to  i.  29  )  (1).  Hence  jjropTi- 
ecy  has  depicted  the  termination  of  this  hostile  relation  in  its  description  of  the 
time  of  salvation  (in  tbe  well-known  passages,  Isa.  xi.  6-8,  Ixv.  25). 

3.  Lastly,  in  Gen.  ii.,  immortality  is  ascribed  to  man,  but  conditionally,  in  the 
sense  oi  posse  non  mori.  This  is  denied  by  many.  Certainly  the  idea,  that  if  man 
did  not  sin  he  should  never  die,  does  not  necessarily  lie  in  the  words.  Gen.  ii.  17, 
"  In  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  die  ;"  the  words,  taken  by  them- 
selves, might  mean  only  a  quick  and  early  death.  But  it  is  quite  clear  from  iii.  22 
that,  according  to  the  sense  of  the  record,  the  possibility  of  reaching  immortality 
was  annexed  to  the  life  in  Paradise,  and  that  immortality  was  destined  for  man 
so  far  as  he  should  live  in  unbroken  communion  with  God.  And  iii.  19  (2)  does 
not  mean,  as  many  expositors  have  maintained,  that  by  nature  man  must  die  ;  the 
words  only  give  the  reason  why  the  end  of  man's  life,  when  once  decreed,  is 
brought  about  in  the  manner  described  as  a  dissolution  of  the  body  (3). 

(1)  In  Gen.  i.  29  man  is  still  restricted  to  vegetable  nourishment.  The  power 
to  kill  animals  is  not  given  him  till  chap.  ix. 

(2)  Gen.  iii.  22  :  "That  he  may  not  take  of  the  tree  of  life,  and  live  to  eter- 
nity.'''' Ver.  19  :  "  Till  thou  returnest  again  to  the  earth,  for  out  of  it  wast  thou 
taken  ;  dust  thou  art,  and  unto  dust  shalt  thou  return." — Particulars  on  the  last 
quoted  passage  in  §  77. 

(3)  It  may  be  asked  why  the  Old  Testament  refers  so  little  to  the  primitive 
state  ?  This  question  has  been  very  well  answered  by  Gustav  Baur,  in  his  treatise, 
"Die  alttest.  und  die  griechische  Vorstellung  vom  Sundenfalle,"  in  the  Theol. 
Studien  und  Kritiken,  1848.  He  says,  p.  360  :  "The  lost  Paradise  lying  in 
the  past  is  not  further  regarded  by  the  religion  of  Israel,  which  forgets  what  is 
behind,  and  reaches  forward  to  what  is  before,  pursuing  the  aim  of  a  future  and 
blessed  communion  with  God,  which  is  placed  before  it ;  instead  of  idly  mourn- 
ing over  the  lost  golden  time,  it  rather  strives,  filled,  purified  and  strengthened 
by  the  Spirit  of  God,  to  regain  Paradise." 


158  THE    DOCTRINES    AND    OKDINANCES   OF   MOSAlbM.  [§    73. 


II.  OP  sm. 

1.     THE   ORIGIN  OP   SIN. 

§   73. 
The  Formal  Principle  of  Sin. 

The  way  in  which  both  the  formal  and  the  material  principle  of  sin  are  to 
be  comprehended  according  to  the  Old  Testament  is  embodied  iu  the  history  of 
the  Fall  (Gen.  ili.)  In  this  (entirely  symbolical)  account  the  following  doctrines 
are  taught : 

1.  Man  can  pass  from  the  state  of  innocence  into  the  possession  of  moral  char- 
acter only  by  an  act  of  self-determination.  For  this  it  is  first  necessary  for 
him  to  distinguish  his  will,  in  which  till  then  the  good  was  immediately  placed 
[or,  in  other  words,  which  instinctively  chose  the  good,]  from  the  good  itself,  and 
so  to  obtain  the  conception  of  sometliing  not  good  (J^")]  ^it^  r\}!\  ii.  17).  Hence 
the  good  is  placed  before  him  objectively,  in  the  form  of  a  command,  ii.  16  f. 
But  the  meaning  of  the  story  is  not  (as  some  modern  theologians  have  understood 
it)  that  it  was  intended  that  man  should  transgress  the  law,  because,  as  Bruno 
Bauer,  for  example  {Die  Religion  des  A.  T.  i.  p.  23),  has  expressed  it,  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  good  is  possible  only  when  the  subject  distinguishes  itself  from  the  good 
— that  is,  knows  itself  as  sinful.  The  meaning  of  the  record  is  rather,  that  if  the 
will  is  objectively  confronted  by  what  \z  good,  and  it  thereupon  distinguishes 
itself  from  the  good,  still  this  does  not  involve  a  decision  of  the  will  against 
the  good.  This  is  taught  by  the  record  when  it  does  not  represent  the  will  of 
man  as  immediately  reacting  against  the  express  command,  but  refers  the  first 
impulse  to  a  decision  against  the  command  to  the  operation  of  an  influence  from 
without,  and  represents  the  woman  (iii.  1-3)  as  at  first  still  acknowledging 
the  obligatory  force  of  the  divine  command.  This  also  excludes,  according 
to  the  Old  Testament,  the  supposition  that  man  has  a  conscience  only  in  so 
far  as  he  knows  himself  to  be  sinful  (as  has  been  maintained  from  a  Hege- 
lian standpoint).  For  (1)  when  the  woman,  iii.  2  f.,  remembers  the  divine  com- 
mand, and  knows  that  she  is  bound  by  it,  and  thus  acknowledges  its  obligatory 
force,  she  has  not  yet  sinned,  and  yet  she  shows  that  she  has  a  conscience.  Hence 
it  follows  that,  according  to  the  Old  Testament,  sin  is  not  a  necessary  factor  in  the 
development  of  man,  but  a  product  of  free  choice  ;  as  is  also  the  case  afterward, 
though  only,  as  we  shall  see,  in  a  relative  sense,  Deut.  xxx.  15  :  "  See,  I  have 
to-day  set  before  thee  life  and  what  is  good,  death  and  what  is  evil."  In  op- 
position to  this,  such  passages  are  cited  from  tlie  later  books  as  Job  iv.  17  ff.,xiv. 
4,  Ps.  ciii.  10,  14,  which,  when  looked  at  by  themselves,  might  favor  the  sup- 
position that  sin  is  a  necessary  consequence  of  the  finiteness  of  human  nature  ; 
but  these  passages  are  to  be  understood  from  the  standpoint  of  the  present  nature 
of  man. 

2.  As  has  been  said,  the  first  incitement  to  transgress  the  command  came  from 
without.  The  story  apparently  presupposes  an  ungodly  principle  which  had  already 
entered  the  world,  but  does  not  give  any  further  account  of  it.     No  further  atten- 


§   74.]  MATERIAL    PRINCIPLE    AND    O.  T.  NAMES    OF   SIN.  159 

tion  is  paid  to  the  serpent^  and  therefore  it  cannot  be  laid  down  as  a  doctrine  of 
Mosaism  that  it  was  either  Satan  or  a  tool  of  Satan's,  because,  as  we  shall  see 
hereafter,  the  doctrine  of  Satan  does  not  appear  in  the  Old  Testament  till  much 
later,  althougli  it  is  probable  that  in  the  Azazel,  Lev.  xvi.  8  ff.,  a  wicked  demon 
is  to  be  seen.  On  the  other  hand,  Wisd.  ii.  23  f.  teaches  that  the  seduction  of  the 
first  man  is  the  work  of  Satan  ;  and  this  is  also  taken  for  granted  in  the  New 
Testament  (2).  But  the  chief  thing  in  connection  with  this  point  in  Gen.  iii.  is, 
that  the  seduction  does  not  at  all  act  hy  compulsion  on  man,  but  is  successful  only 
when  man  voluntarily  ceases  to  resist  temptation.  Here  there  is  an  essential 
difference  between  the  Old  Testament  account  and  the  Zend  doctrine  according  to 
which  sin  is,  physically  inserted  in  man  (3). 

(1)  Compare  Nitzsch,  System  of  CTiristian  Doctrine,  §  98,  note. 

(2)  It  is  doubtful  whether  in  John  viii.  44,  the  avdpuiTOKTovoc,  refers  to  this  ;  for, 
comparing  1  John  iii.  12,  15,  we  are  inclined  to  interpret  the  passage  about  the 
murderer  as  referring  to  Cain's  fratricide.  But  Rev.  xii.  9,  where  the  devil  is 
called  6  SpaKuv,  6  ooic  6  apxalog,  refers  to  the  Fall  in  Gen.  iii.  Compare,  too,  the 
allusion  in  Rom.  xvi.  20  to  Gen.  iii.  15. 

(3)  In  modern  times  there  has  been  no  lack  of  attempts  to  understand  the 
matter  physically,  by  making  the  tree  of  knowledge  a  poisonous  tree.  These  are 
all  additions  to  the  Old  Testament  account. 

§74. 

Tlie  Material  Princijyle  of  Sin.      The  Old  Testament  Names  of  Sin. 

3.  The  following  is  the  process  of  the  origin  of  sin  :  First,  doubt  is  awakened 
whether  what  God  has  commanded  is  really  good,  and  along  with  this  the  command 
itself  is  exaggerated.  Gen.  iii.  1  (1).  Distrust  of  God  was  first  to  be  called  up, 
as  if  He  were  an  envious  being  who  sought  to  keep  man  back  in  a  lower  stage  ; 
and  then  ver.  4  proceeds  to  a  decided  denial  of  God's  word.  Only  then,  when 
selfishness,  rebelling  against  God's  will  and  God's  word,  has  been  awakened,  does 
sensuous  allurement,  ver.  6,  exert  its  power.  In  other  words,  the  real  principle  of 
sin  is,  according  to  the  Old  Testament,  imhelief  of  thejU.vine  word,  the  selfish  eleva- 
tion  of  jdf-will  above  the  divine  will,  and  the  presumptuous  trampli?ig_upon  the 
limits  set  by  divine  command^  The  senses  appear  as  occupying  only  a  secondary 
place  in  the  production  of  sin.  Thus  Gen.  iii.  disproves  the  doctrine  so  often 
advanced,  especially  in  the  Rabbinical  theology,  that  according  to  the  Old  Tes- 
tament the  real  principle  of  evil  lies  in  matter,  in  the  body  (2).  It  is  a  funda- 
mental doctrine  of  the  Old  Testament  that  evil  is  originally  the  denial  of  the  divine 
will ;  that  sin  is  sin  because  man  selfishly  exalts  himself  above  God  and  His  will. 
The  Old  Testament  knows  of  no  evil  which  is  merely  men's  wronging  of  each 
other,  or  a  mere  retardation  of  the  development  of  human  nature,  simple  weak- 
ness (3). — That  the  Old  Testament  sees  the  ground  of  all  evil  in  the  selfish  trans- 
gression of  bounds  prescribed  to  man  by  God,  is  not  to  be  explained  by  thinking 
of  God  as  an  envious  being,  but  because  He  is  the  Holy  One,  and  holiness  as  such 
(as  has  been  already  shown)  cannot  bear  anything  contradictory  to  it.  The  God 
who  rules  over  the  world  in  resistless  omnipotence,  giving  measure  and  aim  to 
all  things,  has  no  ground   for  envy  like  the  Greek  gods  (4).     It  is  preposterous  to 


160  THE    DOCTRINES    AND    ORDINANCES   OF    MOSAISM.  [§    ?4. 

take  the  words  of  Gen.  iii.  23,  "  The  man  is  become  like  one  of  us,"  as  an  ex- 
pression of  divine  envy,  as  has  been  done  by  some  expositors  {e.g.  P.  v.  Bohlen)  ; 
it  rather  contains  a  mournful  irony— man  by  the  Fall  has  really  reached  what  he 
was  to  reach,  but  in  a  wrong  way,  and  to  his  hurt.  In  one  sense  the  serpent,  in 
the  words  "eritis  sicut  Deus,"  told  the  truth,  for  man  has  reached  independence 
over  against  God.  But  still  he  was  deceived  and  deluded,  for  it  is  only  in- 
dependence in  evil.  Instead  of  being  raised  to  free  communion  with  God,  he  is 
free  to  go  upon  ungodly  paths.  It  is  shown  by  the  curse  to  which  man  is  now 
subjected  that  the  account  does  not  in  the  least  mean  to  speak  of  nfelix  culjia,  of 
an  elevation  of  man  by  sin  (5). — Whether  there  are  allusions  to  the  story  of  the 
Fall  in  the  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament  cannot  be  affirmed  with  entire 
certainty.  Most  probably  there  is  such  an  allusion  in  Hos.  vi.  7,  where  the 
rendering,  "  they  transgressed  the  covenant  Z/Z'6  Adam,''''  certainly  deserves  to  be 
preferred  to  the  other  renderings, — "  after  the  manner  of  men,"  or  "  like  men  of 
the  mob,"  or  "like  a  covenant  with  a  man"  (6).  In  Job  xxxi.  33,  too,  the  ex- 
planation, "If  I  had  dissembled  my  transgressions  like  Adam"  (referring  to 
Adam's  excuses  for  himself),  is  more  probable  than  the  other  viev/,  "  after  the 
manner  of  man."  On  the  contrary,  Isa.  xliii.  27,  "  thy  first  father  sinned,"  with- 
out doubt  does  not  refer  to  Adam's  fall ;  rather  to  Abraham,  but  probably  to 
Jacob,  the  proper  ancestor  of  the  people. 

The  Old  Testament  designations  for  sin  are  to  be  understood  in  conformity  with 
the  account  we  have  given  of  the  principle  of  sin.  («)  The  most  common 
expression  is  '^^X^,  J"l^??n,  first  in  Gen.  iv.  7,  or  shorter,  X^n  ;  it  comprehends  sins 
of  weakness  as  well  as  sins  of  wickedness.  The  physical  meaning  of  i<^n  is  to 
miss  the  mark,  Judg.  xx.  16.  nX£3n  denotes  missing,  deviation,  viz.,  from  the  di- 
vine way  and  the  goal  prescribed  for  man  by  the  divine  will ;  and  *5^n  joined 
with  7  means  to  go  astray  from  God,  to  deviate,  to  sin  against  Him.  (h)  The 
second  expression,  |ijj,  means  properly  croolcedness,  perversion,  pravitas  ;  primarily 
it  does  not  designate  an  action,  but  the  character  of  an  action  ;  hence  in  Ps.  xxxii. 
5,  'jpXJj)n  |i;?.,.  In  the  mouth  of  men  of  the  world,  Hos.  xii.  9,  the  word  means 
wrong  in  general  (7).  But  since,  according  to  Old  Testament  doctrine,  there  is 
no  wrong  which  is  not  sin,  jU'  is  iha  perve7'sio7i  of  the  divine  law,  avouia  \  then  espe- 
cially the  guilt  of  sin,  first  in  Gen.  xv.  18,  and  so  in  many  connections  :  JU'  ^'r'^, 
to  take  away  guilt  ;  i*!^  '^''?X^,  to  impute  guilt ;  |U'  "^5?,  to  forgive  guilt,  (c)  In 
its  intensification,  sin  becomes  i"^3,  an  expression  which  probably  means  properly 
breach  with  God,  and  hence  apostasy,  rebellion  against  God  ;  for  the  stem  l^'^ii  seems 
to  be  connected  with  pD3,  rupit.  While  rixun  includes  sins  of  negligence  and 
weakness,  design  and  set  purpose  are  always  implied  in  V^^.  Job  xxxiv.  37  may 
be  regarded  us  the  chief  passage  (8).  Still  it  often  stands  side  by  side  with  y^}^ 
and  riK^n,  Ex.  xxxiv.  7,  Num.  xiv.  18.  {d)  If  the  evil  has  become  an  habitual 
feature  of  the  disposition  and  of  the  actions,  it  is  J'^'J..  The  Vp"]  is  the  opposite  of 
p"1V.  Still  this  expression,  like  p'lV,  can  be  used  in  reference  to  a  single  case. 
The  main  notion  in  y^l  appears  to  be  stormy  excitement  (connected  by  its  root  with 
TJ"^,,  etc.,  although  the  term  is  often  explained  otherwise)  ;  comp.  passages  like 
Job  iii.  17,  Isa.  Ivii.  20,  etc.  (e)  Evil,  as  in  itself  empty  and  worthless,  is  called 
jiK  (also  Kliy,  etc.). 


§   75.]  Siisr   AS   AN"   INCLINATION".      TRANSMISSION"   OF   SIN.  161 

(1)  The  passage  Gen.  iii.  1  must  necessarily  be  thus  explained:  "  Ilath  God 
said  ye  shall  not  eat  of  all  the  trees  of  the  garden?"  that  is,  of  no  tree  ichatever. 
N7  is  separated  from  ^i),  and  belongs  to  the  verb.  Comp.  oh  Tvag  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

(3)  Compare,  e.  g.,  Maimonides,  More  NebocJi.  iii.  8. — That  Gen.  vi.  3,  which  has 
also  been  appealed  to,  proves  nothing  for  this  is  shown  in  §  77. 

(3)  In  reference  to  the  relation  of  the  doctrine  of  sin  in  the  Old  Testament  on 
the  one  hand,  and  among  the  Indo-Germanic  peoples  on  the  other  hand,  Grau  has 
rightly  found  a  cardinal  point  here.  He  says,  {Semiten  und,  Iiidogermanen,  p.  94)  : 
"  Sin  is  not  merely  a  transgression  of  the  bounds  given  in  the  nature  and  consti- 
tution of  man  ;  this  is  the  purely  earthly,  philosophical  notion  reached  by  tlie  Indo- 
German,  whose  thought  does  not  go  beyond  the  world.  But  sin  is  essentially  a 
transgression  of  the  law  of  God,  an  injury  to  the  absolutely  Holy  Ego.  From  the 
former  standpoint,  when  the  limits  which  were  passed  are  set  up  again,  and  the 
harm  which  was  the  consequence  of  the  transgression  is  blotted  out,  the  sin  itself 
appears  to  be  done  away  with.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  sin  is  committed  against 
God,  it  is  not  something  simply  finite,  something  which  the  perpetrator  can 
undo,  but  it  is  infinite  guilt,  because  the  injured  person  has  an  infinite  value." 
[That  sin  is  enhanced  by  being  committed  against  God  is  an  important  truth,  but 
to  call  it  infinite  because  God  is  infinite,  as  is  sometimes  done  in  systems  of 
theology,  is  certainly  illogical. — D.] 

(4)  The  Greek  gods  can  exercise  envy,  because  tliey  do  not  stand  in  the  relation 
of  absolute  superiority  to  men.  The  Hellenic  doctrine  of  the  origin  of  sin  is 
expressed  in  the  myth  of  Prometheus.  There,  indeed,  the  envy  of  the  gods  is 
an  important  element.  In  Mekone,  men  and  gods  gathered  together  in  order  to 
define  their  rights  on  both  sides.  On  this  occasion  Prometheus  was  able  to  entrap 
Zeus.  It  is  a  struggle  between  the  gods  and  men,  which  is  something  entirely 
different  from  the  struggle  known  in  the  Old  Testament.  Compare  the  above- 
cited  treatise  of  Gustav  Baur,  p.  347. 

(5)  On  the  connection  of  death  and  sin,  see  §  77. 

(6)  Ps.  Ixxxii.  7  does  not  speak  in  favor  of  the  second  explanation  of  D*]i<2  in 
Hos.  vi.  7,  because  there  the  contrast  is  different.  The  third  explanation  would 
be  admissible  only  if  HSn  referred  to  men  of  higher  station — to  priests  and 
prophets  ;  but  it  refers  to  Judah  and  Israel.  Lastly,  if  according  to  t\\Q  pnirth 
explanation  ^l^^  stood  for  D"JX  n'")3Ii,  the  order  of  the  words  would  be  different. 

(7)  Hos.  xii.  9  :  X£pn--|^K  ji^  'V-'lX^fp'  xS,  "  They  find  none  iniquity  in  me 
that  were  sin." 

(8)  Job  xxxiv.  37  :  V^^  'mmxy~h];-'\'d\  "He  adds  to  his  sin  rebellion." 

2,    THE   STATE   OF   SIN. 

§   75. 

8in  as  an  Inclination.      Transmission  of  Sin. 

In  consequence  of  the  Fall,  sin  appears  as  a  state  in  mankind — that  is,  as  an  in- 
clination which  rules  man,  and  as  a  common  sinful  life  which  is  transmitted  partly 
in  mankind  in  general,  and  jiartly  in  an  especial  degree  in  jjarticular  races,  and  so 
subjects  these  to  the  curse  of  guilt  and  judgment. 

1.  After  once  appearing  by  the  free  act  of  man,  sin  does  not  remain  in  this  is- 
olation. The  second  sin,  that  of  self-excuse  and  palliation  of  the  offence,  follows 
immediately  on  the  first,  the  sin  of  disobedience.  Gen.  iii.  10.  This  is  the  H^OT 
(deceit),  Ps.  xxxii.  2,  which,  when  sin  has  once  entered,  prevents  the  realization 
of  earnest  opposition  thereto.     As  sin  thus  joins  to  sin,  it  becomes  a  haiitus,  and 


162  THE   T)OCTRIKES    AND   ORDTKTANCES   OP   MOSAISM.  f§    75. 

in  this  wiiy  a  definite  feature  of  the  heart,  or,  as  it  is  termed,  a  37  ly;,  imagination 
of  the  heart,  an  iticUnation,  which  gives  a  perverted  tendency  to  man's  will.  Thus 
it  is  said  before  the  flood,  Gen.  vi.  5  :  "Every  imagination  of  the  thoughts  of  his 
heart  is  only  evil  continually"  (rDrn-^l  ];-\  pi  i^S  nhpT^D  "i^:-'?^)  ;  and  after  it 
again,  viii.  21  :  "The  imagination  of  man's  heart  is  evil  from  his  youth"  C*'^". 
1'lJJ^P  yi  D"J{<n  2"?).  That  this  "^V'.  is  not  to  be  understood  simply  as  a  physical 
disposition,  as  is  taught  by  the  Rabbinical  theology  (1),  is  shown  by  the  more 
exact  expression  in  vi.  5  :  isS  nic/no  1^".  (comp.  1  Chron.  xxviii.  9).  Because 
this  sinful  inclination — this  is  the  meaning  of  the  variously  explained  passage 
Gen.  viii.  21 — cleaves  to  man  from  his  youth,  the  human  race  would  lie  under  a 
continual  sentence  of  destruction  if  God  gave  severe  justice  its  course.  The 
ground  for  sparing  him  is,  according  to  the  context  of  that  passage,  that  man 
still  seeks  communion  with  God,  as  is  shown  by  sacrifice.  — The  natural  striving 
of  man  against  God's  law — the  stiff-necked ness  and  hardness  of  heart  so  often 
spoken  of  in  the  Pentateuch — is  based  on  this  sinful  inclination.  Therefore, 
when  Israel  promises  to  keep  the  divine  law,  the  divine  voice  complains,  Deut.  v. 
28,  29  :  "  They  have  spoken  right,  but  oh  that  they  had  a  heai-t  to  fear  me  and 
keep  all  my  commands." 

2.  That  this  sinful  inclination  is  hereditary  is  indirectly  contained  in  the  pas- 
sages cited,  although  it  is  not  expressly  said.  It  is  also  to  be  noticed,  that  Mosa- 
ism,  although  it  derives  the  propagation  of  man's  race  from  God's  blessing,  still 
regards  all  events  and  conditions  which  refer  to  birth  and  generation  as  requiring 
a  purifying  expiation  ;  compare  the  law,  Lev.  xii.  and  xv.,  in  which  the  thought 
lies  that  all  these  conditions  are  connected  with  the  disturbance  of  sin.  Hence 
Ps.  li.  7  expresses  the  idea  of  the  law  :  "  Behold,  I  was  born  in  iniquity,  and  in 
sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me."  Even  if  this  passage  spoke  only  of  a  pp^  and 
*<£pn  of  the  parents,  according  to  the  explanation  which  is  now  more  common,  it 
would  still  follow,  from  the  fact  that  the  very  origin  of  man  is  connected  with  sin, 
that  even  the  newly  born  child  is  not  free  from  sin  ;  as  Job  xiv.  4  expresses  it,  "  Ho'w 
can  a  clean  thing  come  from  an  unclean  ?  not  one," — a  thought  which  is  certainly 
connected  with  the  passage  in  the  Psalms.  But  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  j^J^  and 
t^CJr'  in  the  passages  in  the  Psalms  being  referred,  as  is  done  by  Hitzig,  to  the  child 
itself  as  soon  as  conceived  and  born  ;  according  to  which,  the  passage  says  di- 
rectly that  evil  is  ingrown  in  man  from  the  first  moment  of  his  origin  (2). — This 
transmission  of  sin  takes  place  with  special  intensity  in  certain  races,  esj^ecially  those 
that  have  fallen  under  the  divine  cune.  This  is  implied  in  the  history  of  the  Cain- 
ites,  Gen.  iv.  ;  of  Ham,  and  especially  Canaan,  from  ix.  25  onward  ;  of  Moab  and 
Ammon,  from  xix.  36  onward,  etc.  ;  but  it  is  especially  expressed  in  the  repeated 
declaration  that  God  visits  the  sins  of  tlie  fathers  on  the  third  and  fourth  genera- 
tion. For  this  point  the  main  passages  are  :  Ex.  xx.  5,  xxxiv.  7  ;  Num.  xiv.  18  ; 
Deut.  v.  9.  Tiiese  passages  do  not  mean  to  say  (as  it  has  often  been  misrepre- 
sented) that  God  punishes  tiie  sins  of  the  fathers  on  guiltless  descendants,  as  con- 
versely He  brings  the  blessing  of  pious  fathers  on  the  latest  generationSj  even 
though  they  walk  in  the  path  of  sin.  This  is  not  contained  in  Ex.  xx.  5  f.  (3). 
Even  if  (with  the  Vulgate,  — "  in  .  .  .  genorationem  eorum,  qui  oderunt  me,"  Kno- 
bel,  and  others)  we  refer  the  'NJK/V  simply  to  nilK,  and  understand  it  as  a  repetition 


§    lo.]  SIX    AS    AN    INCLINATION.       TRANSMISSION    OF    SIN.  103 

of  the  genitive, — "  visiting  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers— of  ihi.\faiJi(^rs  who  hate  me," 
— it  is  not  said  that  the  sons  are  innocent ;  nothing  at  all  is  said  concerning  their 
character.  But  7  does  not  resume  the  genitive  again  after  JU'.,  for  then  it  would 
stand  after  riix.  From  its  jiosition  and  parallelism  with  '^ri*^'?,  ver.  6,  'WK'S 
must  rather  be  refeired  to  fathers  and  sons  together.  The  presupposition  certainly 
is,  that  as  a  rule  a  moral  condition  of  life  is  introduced  by  the  father  of  the  race, 
which  continues  to  operate  as  a  power  in  the  family  (4).  Now,  if  the  descend- 
ants continue  in  the  sin  of  their  ancestors,  and  fill  up  its  measure  (comp.  Gen.  xv. 
16),  then,  even  if  the  divine  forbearance  should  wait  till  the  third  and  fourth 
generation,  they  meet  the  judgment  incurred  by  the  common  sins  of  the  race  ; 
their  sins  and  those  of  their  fathers  are  punished  at  the  same  time  upon  them. 
For  this  idea  compare  the  particularly  instructive  passage  Lev.  xxvi.  39  :  "  They 
pine  away  in  the  lands  of  your  foes  for  their  iniquity  ;  and  also  for  the  iniquity  of 
their  fathers  which  is  among  them,  do  they  pine  away."  The  possibility  of  ab- 
rogating the  curse  lying  on  a  race,  as  in  the  case  of  Levi  (comp.  §  29  with  note 
2),  or  at  least  that  some  should  be  freed  from  it,  is  not  here  denied  (compare  the 
case  of  the  Korahites).  According  to  this,  Ex.  xx.  5  f.  is  not  contradictory  to 
Deut.  xxiv.  16  (5)  ;  a  passage  which,  moreover,  mainly  refers  to  the  administra- 
tion of  penal  justice  by  man  (comp.  2  Kings  xiv.  6).  But  if  the  prophets  Jere- 
miah, xxxi.  29  f.,  and  Ezekiel,  chap,  xviii.  and  xxxiii.  17  f.,  use  the  doctrine  of 
Deuteronomy  in  reference  also  to  the  divine  justice,  they  do  not  in  so  doing  con- 
flict with  the  proposition  in  Ex.  xx,  5 — which,  indeed,  is  placed  by  Jeremiah 
himself,  chap,  xxxii.  18,  beside  the  other,  ver.  19  (comp.  Lam.  v.  7  with  iii.  39 
ff.,  where  again  both  propositions  are  ^ound)  ;  the  prophets  simply  protest 
against  the  perverse  application  which  the  self-righteous  people  of  their  time  rtade 
of  that  ancient  declaration  to  palliate  their  guilt  (6).  The  passages  on  both  sides 
proceed  from  different  points  of  view.  If  we  proceed  from  the  consideration 
lOf  individuals,  each  one  suffers  for  his  own  sin  ;  but  if  we  consider  the  species, 
the  sin  of  each  individual  is  the  issue  and  continuance  of  the  collective  sin  which 
had  its  origin  in  the  sin  of  the  fathers  of  the  race. 

(1)  Compare  Vitringa,  Olservationes  Sacrce,  iii.  8,  p.  618. 

(2)  The  Talmud,  indeed,  speaks  of  children  born  in  holiness,  but  not  the  Old 
Testament.  The  divine  endowment  of  some  men  in  the  womb  (Jer.  i.  5,  etc.)  is 
no  argument  against  the  universal  sinfulness  of  man. 

(3)  Ex.  XX.  5  :  "Thou  shalt  not  worship  them  (the  idols),  for  I,  Jehovah,  thy 
God,  am  a  jealous  God,  visiting  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers  on  the  children  to  the 
third  and  fourth  generation,  'NJK'?." 

(4)  Compare  Hiivernick,  Theol.  des  A.  T.,  2d  ed.,  edited  by  Schultz,  p.  113: 
"It  is  to  be  regarded  as  an  exception  when  a  godless  father  has  a  virtuous  son. 
That  ethical  states  follow  a  rule  is  presupposed  in  the  law  ;  this  it  regards,  so  to 
speak,  as  the  normal  course  of  things  in  the  sphere  of  wickedness." 

(5)  Deut.  xxiv.  16  :  "The  sons  shall  not  be  slain  for  their  fathers'  sake  ;  each 
one  shall  die  for  his  own  sin." 

(6)  The  Jews  in  Jer.   xxxi.  29  interpreted  it  as  meaning,  as  many  Christian  • 
commentators  have  done  :  "  The  fathers  ate  sour  grapes,  and  the  children's  teeth 
became  blunt." 


164      .  THE    DUCTKINES   AND   ORblNANCES   OE   MOSAlSAI.  [§    76. 


§  76. 

Antagonism  of  the  Good  and  the  Evil  in  Man.     Degrees  of  Sin.     PossiUlity  of  a 
Relative  Righteousness. 

Along  with  all  this,  the  power  of  sin  is  represented  as  a  power  which  may  and 
should  be  resisted  by  man  in  the  exercise  of  his  freedom.  And  thus  from  man's 
own  choice  spring  the  various  degrees  of  sin,  which  culminate  in  callousness ;  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  by  submission  to  the  word  and  will  of  the  revealing  God,  a 
godly  life  in  the  midst  of  the  sinful  world  is  prescribed  as  possible,  thus  making  a 
distinction  between  the  righteous  and  the  ungodly. 

According  to  the  Old  Testament,  the  condition  of  man  in  consequence  of  the 
Fall  is  npt  that  of  an  absolute  subjection  to  sin,  which  destroys  the  power  of  resist- 
ance, but  it  is  an  antagonism  between  man's  susceptibility  to  the  good  [in  other 
words,  between  his  reason  and  conscience  pleading  in  favor  of  what  is  right. — D.] 
and  the  power  of  sin.  The  feeling  of  the  contradiction  now  existing  in  man  shows 
itself,  Gen.  iii.  7,  in  the  awakening  of  shame,  but  iv.  G  f.  is  in  this  connection  the 
main  passage.  It  is  to  be  explained  thus  :  Jehovah  said  to  Cain,  "  Why  ait  thou 
wroth,  and  why  has  thy  countenance  fallen  ?  Is  it  not  so,  if  thou  doest  well,  thy 
countenance  is  lifted  up,  but  if  thou  doest  not  well,  sin  is  before  the  door,  as  a  lier 
in  wait  (1)  ;  his  desire  (sin's)  is  towards  thee  ;  but  thou  shouldst  rule  over  him." 
Here  are  expressed  the  possibility  and  the  duty  of  resisting  the  sinful  inclination. 
The  whole  law  rests  on  this  presupposition  (compare  especially  Deut.  xxx.  11-20), 
though,  at  the  same  time  (as  we  shall  see  presently),  it  is  distinctly  stated  that 
the  overcoming  of  the  power  of  sin  in  man  is  not  attained.  But  according  as  men 
seek  or  do  not  seek  to  rule  over  sin,  there  arises  a  difference  of  relation  to  God 
and  a  difference  in  the  degree  of  sinfulness.  This  difference  of  degree  is  by  no 
means  to  be  resolved  into  the  difference  between  the  inner  and  outer,  as  if  the 
decisive  point  were  the  external  relation  of  man  to  the  law  ;  for,  in  Ex.  xx.  17, 
wicked  desire  [coveting]  is  forbidden  no  less  than  wicked  deeds,  and  the  law  de- 
mands more  than  mere  outward  conformity  to  the  divine  will.  Though  the  civil 
and  ceremonial  ordinances  must,  in  the  nature  of  things,  have  in  view  primarily 
outward  offences,  still,  in  reference  to  individual  sinful  actions,  they  distinguish 
between  sins  committed  through  error  and  negligence  (nJJK'3,  Lev.  iv.  2,  22,  etc.  ; 
compare  Num.  xxxv.  22  ff.)  and  those  committed  with  wicked  intent  (HO^  "^'5, 
Num.  XV.  30,  etc.).  But  what  the  spirit  of  the  Old  Testament  is  in  reference  to 
the  moral  estimate  of  the  whole  man,  is  shown  in  sacred  history  by  many  ex- 
amples. Moses — although  even  he,  the  faithful  servant  of  God,  was  severely 
punished  for  sin — did  not  sin  like  Pharaoh,  in  whom  God's  judgments  produced 
an  appearance  of  repentance  only  till  he  could  take  breath.  David,  to  the  depth 
of  whose  fall  corresponded  a  repentance  just  as  deep,  sinned  differently  from 
Saul,  who  was  sorry  for  his  sin  because  it  brought  disaster  upon  him.  In  short, 
the  measure  for  the  divine  estimate  of  man  lies  in  the  uprightness  and  purity  of 
the  attitude  of  the  heart  towards  God  (^^S  oh).  The  Old  Testament  calls  the 
highest  degree  of  sin  ohduracy.,  or  hardening  of  the  heart  (37  pjn,  Ex.  iv.  21  ;  ]*3{<, 
2  Chron.  xxxvi.  13  ;  T3Dn,  133,  1  Sam.  vi.  C  ;  Ht'i^n,  Pa.  xcv.  8,  Prov.  xxviii.  14, 


§    76.]         ANTAGONISM    OF   THE    GOOD    AND   THE    EVIL   IN    MAN.  166 

for  which  we  find  also,  to  shut  the  heart,  Isa.  xliv.  18,  to  make  fat,  fP^H,  vi.  10 ; 
comp.  Ps.  cxix.  70,  to  make  the  heart  like  a  diamond,  Zech.  vii.  12).  This  is  the 
condition  in  which  a  man,  by  continually  cherishing  sin,  has  [in  a  sensej  lost  the  abil- 
ity to  withstand  it  ;  and  it  is  added,  that  God  can  gloiify  Himself  on  such  a  one 
only  by  punishment.  For  it  is  God's  ordinance,  that  as  the  power  to  do  good  grows 
by  its  exercise,  so  also  sin  is  punished  by  continued  sinning  ;  compare  Ps.  Ixxxi, 
12  f.  (2).  This  hardening  is  both  a  divine  act  and  at  the  same  time  the  sinner'' s  own 
act,  so  that  the  two  expressions  are  interchangeable  ;  compare  on  the  one  side  Ex. 
vii.  3  (niriD  2h-m  H'^px  'J5<),  iv.  21.  x.  20  (prn]  pin-l.),  and  on  the  other  side,  viii. 
15,  28  (i3S-nx  nj;"!?  13D'_1),  Ix.  34,  xiii.  15  (comp.  1  Sam.  vi.  6,  Prov.  xxviii. 
14  :  ^ill^  ^is;  U?  ^Pp,'0,  etc.).  In  the  first  case,  hardening  is  the  effect  of  the 
divine  lorath.  In  this  way  the  difficult  and  often  misinterpreted  passage,  (Isa. 
Ixiv.  4  (5),  is  to  be  explained.  It  is  not,  "Thou  wast  wroth  because  we  sinned," 
but.  "  Thou  wast  wroth,  and  then  we  sinned  ;  in  those,  i.e.  in  the  ways  of  God, 
we  sinned  from  time  immemorial,  and  shall  we  be  saved?"  The  passage  refers 
to  Ixiii.  17,  "  Why  dost  Thou  permit  us  to  err  from  Thy  ways,  and  hardenest  our 
hearts  not  to  fear  Thee?"  (3).  But  we  must  here  note  as  essential,  that  the  Old 
Testament  (like  the  New)  always  speaks  of  hardeniug  only  in  connection  with  a 
divine  testimony  in  revelation — in  reference  to  a  divine  revelation  offered  to  the 
sinner,  J3ut  rejected  by  him.  This  is  applicable  to  Plinraoh,  who  sees  the  miracles 
of  Moses,  which  forced  even  the  Egyptian  Magi  to  feel,  Ex.  viii.  19,"  this  is  God's 
finger  ;"  "  but,"  it  is  continued,  "Pharaoh's  heart  was  hardened  (n;n|3-3S  pTn'l)." 
The  same  thing  is  applicable  to  Israel  in  view  of  the  divine  guidance  in  the 
wilderness  ;  and  according  to  this  also,  that  which  is  said  of  the  Carmnnitish  trihes 
Josh.  xi.  20  is  to  be  explained  :  "  For  it  was  of  Jehovah  to  harden  their  heart  to 
strive  with  Israel,  that  He  might  destroy  them,  and  they  might  find  no  grace." 
The  Canaanitish  tribes  merited  punishment  on  account  of  their  idolatrous  abomi- 
nations ;  and  now  that  this  judgment  was  executed  upon  them  in  the  form  of, 
extermination,  it  was  effected  by  themselves  in  virtue  of  a  divine  ordinance 
through  their  hardening  themselves  to  do  battle  with  Israel,  for  whom  God 
manifestly  fought.  In  such  passages  the  point  is  not  (as understood  by  Calvin  and 
the  Calvinists)  a  dark  and  hidden  decree  of  reprobation,  but  a  divine  decree  of 
judgment,  well-grounded  and  perfectly  manifest  (4). — The  course  of  this  hardening 
is  described  in  Isa.  vi.  10  ;  incapability  to  hear  the  divine  word  and  to  see  God's 
ways  (I^K/n  rr;;i  nSDn  rjrxi  .  .  .  aS  pipr})  connects  itself  with  dulness  of  heart 
and  this  again  reacts  on  the  heart  so  that  its  insusceptibility  becomes  incurable. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  the  midst  of  the  sinful  world,  a  righteousness  C^PIV) 
is  attained  by  cheerful  resignation  to  the  divine  will,  and  by  the  loyalty  with 
which  a  man  accepts  the  witness  of  God,  given  to  him  in  accordance  with  the  then 
stage  of  revelation  ;  and  thus  the  difference  between  the  relatively  righteous  and 
unrighteous  goes  through  all  the  different  periods  of  revelation.  Enoch  walked 
with  God,  Gen.  v.  22  ;  Noah  is  regarded  as  righteous  in  the  general  corrup- 
tion, vii.  1  ;  Abraham  believed  the  promise,  and  it  was  counted  to  him  for  right- 
eousness, XV.  6  (5).  But  the  Old  Testament  knows  nothing  of  absolutehj  righteous 
persons  (in  the  canonical  books)  :  "There  is  no  one  who  hath  not  sinned,"  1 
Kings  viii.  46  ;   "  Before  Thee  no  living  man  is  righteous,"  Ps.  cxliii.  2  ;  compare 


IGG  THE    DOCXniXES   AND   OllDIN-ANCES   OF   MOSAISM.  [§   7?. 

Isa.  xliii.  27,  Prov.  xx.  9,  Eccles.  vii.  20(G).  The  J[/<?saic  ?a?c  attests  this  by  except- 
ing none  from  the  need  of  atonement  (7). 

(1)  r^mn,  in  Gen.  iv.  7,  is  [indeed]  not  masculine,  but  1'?^  [here]  stands  as 
a  substantive. 

(2)  Ps.  Ixxxi.  13  f.  :  "My  people  did  not  hearken  to  my  voice,  and  Israel  would 
not  conform  to  my  will.  So  I  gave  them  up  (inn^It'Kl)  to  their  hardness  of  heart, 
that  they  might  walk  in  their  own  counsels."  , 

(3)  Isa.  Ixiv.  4  ;  r^i'Jil  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  still  depends  on  i<n,  Ixiii. 
19. — Evvald  gives  the  meaning  of  ^^D.^1  ^?'^\l  ^^^  i^ost  correctly,  referring  back 
to  Ixiii.  17  :  "  The  longer  God's  wrath,  i.e.  calamity,  lasts,  the  more  rankly 
does  sin  grow  and  spread."  Delitzsch  explains  :  "  and  we  stood  as  sinners." — Di^3 
does  not  mean,  as  Ewald  says,  "  upon  them  (the  Israelites)  continually,"  but 
Dri3  refers,  as  Maurer  and  Stier  have  correctly  explained  it,  to  the  ways  of  God 
before  named. — }^V^]^]  is  best  understood  as  a  question. 

(4)  Gustav  Baur,  in  the  essay,  p.  349,  cited  in  §  72,  note  3,  remarks,  in  reference 
to  this  Okl  Testament  doctrine  of  the  hardening  of  tlxe  heart.,  that  "  if  in  the  Old 
Testament  the  divine  government  a])pears  in  tlic  iiardening  of  the  heart  in  a  way 
which  seems  to  limit  the  free  acts  of  men,  this  was  because  the  idea  which  the 
Israelites  had  of  God  and  the  creation,  from  wliich  human  freedom  necessarily 
follows,  was  not  yet  worked  out  in  all  duections  with  perfect  clearness,  nor 
brought  into  unison  with  the  experiences  of  human  life."  This  is  decidedly  in- 
correct. The  remark  would  refer  equally  to  the  Xew  Testament,  which  contains 
the  very  same  doctrine.  Human  freedom  has  limits  in  reference  to  sin  ;  the  New 
Testament,  too,  knows  of  a  bondage;  to  sin,  and  we  cannot  on  this  jjoiut  speak  of 
the  Old  Testament  standpoint  as  narrow. 

(5)  Compare  further  on  the  doctrine  of  the  righteousness  of  the  law  and  of  faith. 

(6)  Isa.  xliii.  27  :  "  Thy  first  father  has  sinned,  and  thy  intercessors  were  faith- 
less to  me." — Prov.  xx.  9  :  "  Who  can  say,  I  have  kept  my  heart  clean,  I  am  clean 
from  my  sin?" — Eccles.  vii.  20  :  "  There  is  none  righteous  on  earth,  who  doeth 
good  and  sinneth  not." 

(7)  The  apocryphal  Prayer  of  Manasseh  says  in  the  notorious  passage,  ver.  8: 
"  Because  Thou  art  a  God  of  the  righteous,  Thou  hast  not  appointed  repentance  to 
tlie  righteous  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  who  did  not  sin  against  Thee."  The 
passage  is  in  direct  opposition  to  Isa.  xliii.  27,  and  it  was  perhaps  on  this  ac- 
coimt  that  even  the  Romish  Church  did  not  accept  this  prayer  as  a  part  of  the 
Canon. 


III.    ON   DEATH  AND   THE   8TATE   AFTER  DEATH  (1). 

§  77. 

The  Cormection  hetween  Sin  and  Death. 

The  consequence  of  sin  is  death.  The  proof  of  this  lies  in  the  fact  that,  as  has  been 
shown  in  §  72,  posse  non  mori  was  attached  to  the  life  in  Paradise.  But  the  connec- 
tion between  sin  and  death  is  j;(«/<iY"e?y/ expressed  in  Gen.  ii.  17:  "In  the  day 
thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  die."  The  difficulty  arising  from  these  words  from 
the  fact  that  death  did  not  really  follow  immediately  after  tliefEaU,  is  not  (as  some 
propose)  tojje  set  aside  ITy'saying  tliat  DV  (day)  denotes  a  longer  time  ;  the 
eating  and  dying  are,  on  the  contrary,  placed  in  immediate  connection  by  the 
Di'^,  etc.  (for  tliis  expression  ["in  the  day"]  compare  the  quite  similar  passage 
1  Kings  ii.  37).  Neither  is  it  to  be  set  aside  by  supposing  (with  Bottcher,  Knobel, 
and  others)  that  the  threat  in  Gen.  ii.  17  was  not  meant  in  the  view  of  the  narrator 


§   77.]  THK   COKXECTION   liEtWEtlN   SIIST   AND   DEATH.  167 

to  be  serious  (2)  ;  for,  saying  nothing  of  the  fact  that  the  Old  Testament  never 
makes  God  play  with  His  words,  death  clearly  appears,  iii.  19,  as  the  punish- 
ment designed.  For  the  words -"jIiilK^-n;',  [until  thou  return],  etc.,  must  not  be 
understood  of  the  term  wp  to  v^Mch  the  punishment  which  hung  over  man  should 
continue — for  in  that  case  the  reason  which  follows  would  be  utterly  superfluous — 
but  the  words  tell  in  what  way  the  punishment  is  to  take  place,  and  how  it  is 
to  be  executed.  The  issue  of  the  jnuiishment  is  at  once  placed  foremost  in  the 
threat,  ii.  17,  as  is  generally  the  case  in  prophetical  announcements.  In  reality, 
man  entered  on  the  path  of  death  immediately  on  the  commission  of  sin  (3). — The 
punishment  of  death  is  connected  tcith  disobedience,  not  with  the  effect  of  the  fruit  of  the 
tree^  as  many  expositors  infer  from  the  contrast  in  iii.  22.  The  tree  does  not  bear 
the  name  of  the  tree  of  death  in  contrast  to  the  tree  of  life,  but  it  is  called  the 
tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil.  The  partaking  of  the  fruit  had  death  as 
its  consequence  solely  because  a  decision  of  the  will  was  involved  in  it.  The  inti- 
mate connection  of  sin  and  death  is  clear  from  vi.  3,  though  this  passage  prima- 
rily treats  only  of  the  shortening  of  the  length  of  life  through  sin.  This  ditficult 
passage  is  thus  to  be  explained  :  (.Jehovah  declares)  "  My  spirit  shall  not  always 
strive  with  man  ;  in  his  erring  he  isflrsh  ;  his  days  shall  be  a  hundred  and  twenty 
years"  (4).  It  is  not  necessary  to  assuriie  that  "^J^S  (flesh)  stands  here  in  the  ethical 
sense  of  the  New  Testament  aap^  (5).  The  word  is  rather  to  be  taken  in  its  or- 
dinary Old  Testament  meaning  ;  compare  Isa.  xl.  6,  Ps.  Ixxvii.  39,  etc.  :  "in  his 
erring  he  is  flesh" — mortal  fleeting.  According  to  this  passage,  the  divine  spirit 
of  life  which  supports  man  is  enfeebled  by  sin,  and  thus  man's  vital  strength  is 
destroyed  ;  while,  as  Isaiah  (Ixiii.  10)  expresses  himself,  the  Spirit  of  God  is  grieved 
by  sin  ;  it  is  also  repressed  as  the  physical  principle  of  life,  and  thus  man  is  sub- 
ject to  mortality.  The  passages  Num.  xvi.  29,  xxvii.  3,  which  are  brought  to 
bear  on  the  proposition  that  death  is  the  penalty  of  sin,  admit  of  a  different 
interpretation.  Still  in  the  first  passage — "If  these  (Korah  and  his  company) 
die  like  all  men,  □D''!?J'!,  ^p.?'  Dn>5n-S|i  mpS^l," — the  last  words  are  certainly  not 
to  be  explained,  with  Keil, "  and  the  (protective)  care  extended  to  all  men  is  ex- 
erted for  them  ;"  and  scarcely  either  with  Bottcher,  "  and  a  punishment  of  all  the 
world  " — ^that  is,  a  usual  punishment  of  death  is  decreed  against  them,  such  as 
commonly  falls  on  criminals. — The  sense  probably  is,  if  they  die  in  the  common 
way  ;  and  thus  the  common  lot  of  death  is  called  a  penal  visitation,  which  comes 
on  all  men  (6).  In  reference  to  the  second  passage  (where  Zelophehad's  daugh- 
ters are  introduced  as  speaking),  the  sense  may  be  :  "  Our  father  M^as  not  among 
the  company  of  Korah,  so  as  to  die  because  of  his  sin  ;"  if  so,  it<t3ri  refers  to  the 
sin  of  that  conspiracy,  and  the  passage  is  not  relevant  here.  But  even  if  we 
render  "  he  was  not  in  that  company,  but  he  died  in  his  sin,"  it  is  very  question- 
able whether  'iXtpH  should  here  be  referred  to  the  common  sinfulness  of  man,  and 
not  to  the  general  sin  of  the  nation,  which  brought  about  the  death  of  that  whole 
generation  in  the  wilderness.  Lastly,  we  have  to  notice  the  passage  in  the  Psalm 
of  Moses,  xc.  7-10  :  "  For  we  are  consumed  in  Thine  anger,  and  by  Thy  wrath  are 
we  troubled.  Thou  settest  our  iniquities  before  Thee,  our  secret  faults  in  the  light 
of  Thy  countenance  ;  for  all  our  days  pass  away  in  Thine  anger,"  etc.  This 
passage  does  not  primarily  speak  of  death  in  general,  but  only  of  early  death— 


1C8  THE   DOCTRINES   AND   OKDTNANCES   OP   MOSAISM.  [§    77. 

the  lircvity  aud  transientness  of  life  as  tlie  i)unishinent  of  sin.  But  still  this  pas- 
sage does  show  how  the  Old  Testament  connected  death  with  sin  ;  and  this  serves, 
at  the  same  time,  to  explain  why  the  laic,  Num.  xix.  (compare  also  v.  2  f.),  de- 
mands a  pnrifi/ing  propitiation  for  everything  which  comes  into  contact  with  a 
corpse,  although  at  the  same  time  burial  is  considered  so  high  a  duty  of  affection. 
In  many  passages  indeed  mortality  and  frailty  are  predicated  of  human  nature 
generally  without  being  placed  in  connection  with  sin — as  when  man  (Gen.  xviii. 
27)  is  called  dust  and  ashes  ;  when,  in  Ps.  Ixxxix.  48  f.,  it  is  said  :  "  Remember, 
Lord,  how  short  my  life  is  ;  to  what  nothingness  Thou  hast  created  all  sons  of 
men  ;"  compare  further  ciii.  14  ff.,  and  other  passages.  But  this  does  not  mean 
that  death  originally  belonged  to  man's  nature.  These  expressions  are  simply  ut- 
terances of  the  experience  of  the  present  frailty  of  man  ;  which  experience,  indeed, 
is  so  predominant  in  the  Old  Testament  view  of  man,  that  the  meaning  toTje  sick 
or  diseased  attaches  to  the  verbal  stem  K'J**,  which  properly  means  to  be  man  [a 
very  questionable  etymology. — D.]. 


(1)  Compare  my  Commentatioves  and  my  article  "  Unsterblichkeit-Lehre  des 
A.  T.  vonderselben,"  in  Herzog's  Bcal-Encyliop.  xxi.  p.  409  ff. — There  is  no  topic 
of  Old  Testament  theology  on  which  the  literature  is  so  rich  as  on  the  one  in 
question.  Various  views  existed  on  the  subject,  even  in  the  older  Judaism — see 
Himpel,  Die  Unsterhlichkeitslehre  des  A.  T.,  1857  (Ehinger  Progr.),  p.  2  f.  ;  over  it 
the  Church  Fathers  disputed  with  the  heretics — see  my  Commentationes,  p.  1  ff. 
The  discussion  was  renewed  by  the  Socinians  and  Deists — see  the  same,  p.  4  f, , 
and  Ilimpel,  I.  c.  p.  6  ff.,  where  reference  is  also  made  to  the  various  views  of 
more  modern  theologians.  The  literature  of  the  subject  up  to  the  year  1844  is 
noted  in  Bottcher's  learned  work,  De  Inferis,  etc. — Besides  the  writings  of 
Bottcher  and  Himpel,  we  here  mention  Mau,  Vom  Tode,  dem  Solde  der  Siinden,  und. 
der  jhiferdeliung  Christi,  1841  ;  II.  A.  Hahn,  De  spe  immortalitatis  snb  V.  T. 
gradatim  e.rcvlta,  1846;  Fr.  Beck,  "  Zur  Wilrdigung  der  alttest.  Vorstellungen 
von  der  Unsterbliclikeit,"  in  Baur's  and  Zeller's  Theol.  JaJirhilchern,  1851,  p.  469 
ff.  ;  H.  Schultz,  V.  T.  de  Jiominis  immortalitate  sent.,  1860.  with  which  are  jto  be 
compared  the  relevant  sections  in  the  same  author's  work.  Die  Vorcnissetzungen  der 
christl.  Lehre  von  der  UnsterUichkeit,  1861. — The  more  modern  writings  on  biblical 
anthropology  and  eschatology  enter,  also,  more  or  less  on  the  Old  Testament  doc- 
trine of  the  state  after  death  ;  especially  Delitzsch,  BiM.  Psijclwlogie,  2d  ed.,  in 
which  a  list  of  works  on  this  topic  is  given. 

(2)  Knobel  remarks  on  Gen.  ii.  17  :  "Jehovah  announces  a  worse  result  than  He 
knows  will  follow — as  a  father  sometimes,  in  giving  a  prohibition  to  his  children, 
threatens  them  with  more  than  he  really  means." 

(^)  The  passage  Gen.  ii.  17  was  well  expounded  by  Augustine,  De  pecc.  mer. 
i.  21  :  "  Quiimvis  annos  multos  postea  vixerint,  illo  tamen  diemori  coeperunt,  quo 
mortis  legem,  qua  in  senium  veterascerent,  acceperunt."  On  this  passage  compare 
also  my  Vommentntiones,  p.  21,  and  Herni.  Schultz,  Die  Voraussetzungen,  etc.,  p. 
121  ff.  — It  is  indicated  by  the  incident  of  clothes  made  from  animals'  skins, 
mentioned  in  Gen.  iii.  21,  that  man  at  once  was  given  to  see,  in  the  case  of  the 
beasts,  what  death  is. 

(4)  Gen.  vi.  3.— In  K^D  D^M  a  change  of  number,  as  is  often  the  case,  takes 
place.  The  DJtr'3  cannot  possibly  be  taken  to  mean,  "because  also"  =  DJ  "it^'^ilS. 
Apart  from  the  fact  that  in  the  idiom  of  the  Pentateuch  ^  for  "itt'N  is  not  found, 
a  combination  of  particles  of  this  sort  would  be  entirely  without  example,  besides 
which  the  "  also"  would  be  quite  unnecessary.  The  word  is  rather  to  be  under- 
stood as  the  infinitive  of  JJK',  to  wander,  to  go  astray — an  infinitive  in  A,  such  aS 
is  found  from  some  intransitive  roots  "W. 


§  78.]       DOCTRIISrE  OF  MOSAISM  ON  THE  CONDITION"  AFTER  DEATH.         1(39 

(5)  So  Keil  :   "In  his  erring  he  has  shown  himself  to  be  flesh — that  is,  as  in- 
capacitated by  his  own  act  for  bfing  governed  by  God's  Spirit." 

(6)  JuL    Miiller,   too,  thus   explains  the  passage  {The  Doctrine  of  Sin,  ii.  5th 
ed.  p.  404). 


The  Doctrine  of  Mosaism  on  the  Condition  after  Death. 

Death  takes  place  when  the  divine  spirit  of  life  which  sustains  man  is  withdrawn 
by  God,  Ps.  civ.  29,  by  which  means  man  expires  (this  -is  meant  by  i'lJ,  see  Gen. 
vii.  21  with  22),  upon  which  the  body  returns  to  the  dust  from  whence  it  is  taken  ; 
see  also  passages  like  Job  xxxiv.  14  f.,  Eccles.  xii.  7  compared  with  viii.  8.  It 
might  appear  from  these  passages  that  the  human  leing  as  a  whole  is  aimihilated  in 
death,  which  has  been  represented  as  Old  Testament  doctrine  by  not  a  few  (even 
by  H.  A.  Hahn)  (1).  Indeed,  from  the  standpoint  of  mere  reason,  as  shown  in 
Eccles.  iii.  18-21,  there  exists  no  certainty  whether  man  is  different  from  the 
animals  in  death.  But  it  is  clear,  from  the  whole  connection  of  Old  Testament  doc- 
trine (2),  that  as  the  origin  so  also  the  final  destiny  of  man's  soul  is  different  from 
that  of  the  soul  of  an  animal  (with  which  it  seems  to  be  identified  in  Ps.  civ.  29), 
and  that,  when  the  sustaining  spirit  of  life  is  withdrawn,  although  the  band  by 
which  the  '^^l  [soul]  is  bound  to  the  body  is  loosed,  the  soul  itself,  and  man,  so  far 
as  his  personality  lies  in  the  soul,  continues  to  exist ;  yet,  since  all  vital  energies 
depend  on  the  infusion  of  the  nil  [spirit],  he  exists  only  as  a  weak  shadow,  which 
wanders  into  the  kingdom  of  the  dead  (viXI^).  The  word  souls,  it  is  true,  is  never 
used  in  the  Old  Testament  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  kingdom  of  the  dead  ;  nor  do 
we  find  the  expression  spirits,  for  -Job  iv.  15  is  not  a  case  in  point  (3).  But  that 
it  is  the  ^^}.  which  wanders  into  the  kingdom  of  the  dead  is  clear  from  passages 
like  Ps.  xvi.  10,  xxx.  4,  Ixxxvi.  13,  Ixxxix.  49,  xciv.  17,  Prov.  xxiii.  14,  and  Ps. 
xlix.  20,  if  there  (which  is,  indeed,  disputed  by  some)  i^l^r^  is  in  the  third  person, 
and  iK'flJ  is  to  be  supplied  as  the  subject  from  the  preceding  verse  (4).  So  also  it 
is  the  li'pA  which  returns  again  to  the  body  of  the  dead  child  on  being  restored  to  life, 
1  Kings  xvii.  21  f.  (4).  The  narratives  of  resurrection  from  the  dead  (1  Kings  xvii. 
21  f.  ;  2  Kings  iv.  34  f.)  may  be  adduced  as  proving  Vasit  a  closer  connection  bettceeji 
the  hody  just  quitted  and  the  soul  still  subsists  immediately  after  death  (apart  from 
what  has  been  remarked  on  the  application  of  tJ^SJ  to  denote  a  corpse,  §  70)  (5).  Per- 
haps, too,  this  idea  may  be  found  in  the  difficult  passage  Job  xiv.  22,  which  certain- 
ly, according  to  the  context,  refers  to  the  state  of  one  dead,  not  of  one  about  to  die, 
and  then  speaks  of  the  dull  pain  experienced  after  separation  by  the  soul  and 
the  body.  Delitzsch  undt  rstands  this  to  mean,  "  that  the  process  of  the  corrup- 
tion of  the  body  casts  painful  reflections  into  the  departed  soul ;"  but  the  passage 
can  be  also  understood  (and  perhaps  more  correctly)  to  speak  of  the  pain  which 
the  body  and  soul  separately  feel,  as  in  Isa.  Ixvi.  24  sensation  in  corpses  is  pre- 
supposed. On  the  contrary,  there  is  no  trace  in  the  Old  Testament  of  the  Egyptian 
notion  that  a  continual  connection  subsists  between  the  soul  and  body,  in  virtue 
of  which  the  preservation  of  the  body  secures  the  continuance  of  the  soul,  although 
Tacitus,  Hist.  v.  5,  ascribes  this  Egyptirri  conception  to  the  Jews  ;  and  there  is 
just  as  little  traceof  theheathen  ideath"*  ' '  -  soul  of  the  departed  one  cannot  find 


170  THE    DOCTRINES    AND    ORDINANCES    OF    MOSAISM.  [§    78. 

rest  before  the  burial  of  its  dead  body.  Isa.  xiv.  l.j  ff.  speaks  expressly  against 
the  latter  view  (6). 

The  phice  into  which  man  migrates,  the  "H-SdS  n;:n  TVl,  Job  xxx.  23,  is  called 
Sheol  (ViXtf',  seldom  written  defectively).  The  word,  which  is  to  be  regarded  as 
feminine,  may,  with  Winer,  Hengstenberg,  and  others,  be  derived  from  7KK?, 
poscere  [to  ask],  so  that  the  kingdom  of  the  dead  would  be  characterized  as  that 
which  is  insatiable  in  its  demands.  Passages  like  Prov.  i.  12,  xxvii.  20,  xxx.  16, 
Isa.  V.  14,  Hal),  ii.  5,  in  which  the  insatiable  appetite  of  Sheol  is  spoken  of,  are 
favorable  to  this  derivation  ;  only  it  is  improbable  that  the  word,  which  without 
iloubt  is  very  old,  should  really  have  only  the  character  of  a  poetical  epithet.  The 
word  is  traced  by  most  modern  writers  to  the  stem  'V-^^,  to  be  hollow  (as  in 
German,  Ilohle,  a  cavern,  is  connected  with  Eolle,  hell),  a  softening  of  the  J.^  into  N 
being  assumed  ;  or  they  go  back  to  the  root  iy\^,  Td  =  ;f;au,  ?tio,  which  lies  at  the 
liasis  of  the  stem  '^y^,  and  hence  x'^'^'^/^'^j  I'iivine,  abyss,  is  regarded  as  the  original 
meaning  of  the  word  (7). — The  separate  features  of  the  descriptions  of  the  kingdom 
of  the  dead  cannot  be  all  taken  very  literally,  owing  to  the  poetical  character  of 
most  of  the  passages  ;  still  the  following  essential  features  of  the  conception  of  Sheol 
are  distinctly  presented  :— The  kingdom  of  the  dead  (in  contrast  with  the  upper 
spheres  of  light  and  life,  Prov.  xv.  24,  Ezek.  xxvi.  20,  etc.)  is  supposed  to  be  in 
the  depths  ;  compare  Num.  xvi.  30,  and  expressions  like  D'rinri  VlXiZ/,  Deut.  xxxii. 
22,  Ps.  Ixxxvi.  13,  the  depths  of  the  earth  ;  Ps.  Ixiii.  10,  comp.  Ixxxviii.  7,  the 
land  beneath  ;  Ezek.  xxvi.  20,  xxxi.  14,  xxxii.  18,  deeper  even  than  the  waters 
and  their  inhabitants.  It  agrees  with  this,  that  it  is  a  region  of  thickest  darJcness, 
where,  as  Job  x,  22  says,  the  light  is  as  midnight.  The  dead  are  there  gathered 
in  tribes  ;  and  hence  the  oft-recurring  term  in  the  Pentateuch,  "  to  go  (4<''3)  or  be 
gathered  {^Q^,?;)  to  his  fathers  (Vni^N-Sx),  or  to  his  people  (VD^rS^)"  (Gen.  xxv. 
8  f.,  XXXV.  29,  xlix.  33,  Num.  xx.  24  flf. ,  etc.  ;  compare,  too,  the  picture  of 
Sheol  in  Ezek.  xxxii.  17 — 82).  These  terms  cannot  possibly  be  referred  to  the 
grave  (8).  The  kingdom  of  the  dead  and  the  grave  are,  on  the  contrary,  definitely 
distinguished.  For  example,  when  Jacob  says,  in  Gen.  xxxvii.  85,  "In  sorrow  I 
sliall  go  dowMi  n^klZ^  to  my  son,"  he  cannot  expect  to  be  united  with  Joseph  in 
the  grave,  since  he  believes  that  he  was  torn  by  beasts.  It  is  true  that  expressions 
taken  from  the  grave  are  transferred  to  the  kingdom  of  the  dead,  e.  g.  Isa.  xiv. 
11,  where  it  is  said  to  the  conqueror  who  has  sunk  into  the  realm  of  the  dead, 
"Corruption  is  spread  under  thee,  and  the  worms  cover  thee  ;"  indeed,  in  Ezek. 
xxxii.  22  ff.,  the  expression  graves  is  used  of  the  place  of  the  dead.  But  in  both 
passages  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  distinction  between  the  grave  and  Sheol, 
for  in  Isa.  xiv.  18  ff.  it  is  said,  that  while  the  king  of  Babylon  descends  to  Sheol, 
his  corpse  was  to  be  cast  away  imburied  ;  and  the  two  poetical  pictures  depict  a 
common  place  of  rest  for  the  various  nations  of  the  earth  and  their  rulers.  The 
expression,  "1^3,  pit,  is  also  used  in  several  passages  for  the  kingdom  of  the  dead 
(9). 

As  follows  from  the  foregoing,  the  condition  of  men  in  the  realm  of  death  is 
represented  as  the  privation  of  all  that  helongs  to  life  in  the  full  sense  ;  and  so  the 
realm  of  death  is  called  sini])ly  |^"^?^,  that  is,  fall,  destruction  (Job  xxvi.  C  ;  Prov. 
XV.  11,  xxvii.  20)  ;  also  7"!ri,  cessation  (Isa,  xxxviii,  11).    Without  strength,  dull, 


§  78.]       DOCTRINE  OF  MOSAISM  ON  THE  CONDITION"  AFTER  DEATH.         171 

and  like  men  in  slumber,  the  dead  rest  in  silence  (HOH),  Ps.  xciv.  17,  cxv,  17.  Sheol 
is  the  land  of  forgetfulness,  Ps.  Ixxxviii.  13  (H'ty^  V^-^,  a  term  to  be  taken  actively). 
"  The  living  know  that  they  shall  die,  but  the  dead  know  not  anything,  and  have 
no  more  a  reward,  for  the  memory  of  them  is  forgotten.  Their  love,  their  hatred, 
their  envy  are  long  since  perished,  neither  have  they  any  more  a  portion  for 
ever  in  anything  that  is  done  under  the  sun. — There  is  no  work,  nor  device,  nor 
knowledge,  nor  wisdom  in  Sheol,  whither  thou  goest, "  Eccles.  ix.  5,  6,  10. 
Here,  therefore,  no  praise  of  God  and  no  contemplation  of  divine  things  is  possible, 
Ps.  vi.  6,  cxv.  17,  Ixxxviii.  12,  etc.  (10).  With  all  this,  however,  their  conscious- 
ness is  not  destroyed^  but  is  capable  of  being  aroused  from  its  slumber  ;  their 
personal  identity  continues  (compare  such  passages  as  Isa.  xiv.  10,  Ezek.  xxxii. 
21,  1  Sam.  xxviii.  15  ff.).  It  is  probable  that  the  designation  of  the  dwellers  in 
the  kingdom  of  the  dead  as  D'i^S^  refers  to  this — a  designation  which  occurs  only 
in  the  writings  which  are  later  than  the  Pentateuch  (Isa.  xiv.  9,  xxvi.l4  ;  Job  xxvi. 
5  ;  Ps.  Ixxxviii.  11  ;  Prov.  ii.  18,  xxi.  16).  The  term  is  probably  connected  with 
n3"J,  languid  (as  D'><3J  with  HDJ),  and  means  accordingly  the  languid,  enervated 
(compare  ^'^n,  Isa.  xiv.  10  ;  '?,">?"P*?,  Ps.  Ixxxviii.  5).  In  the  Pentateuch,  on  the 
contrary,  D'f'D"]  has  a  quite  different  meaning,  denoting  in  several  passages  a  giant 
people  of  antiquity.  Still,  in  this  meaning  the  word  can  be  traced  to  the  same 
stem,  if  we  suppose  the  primitive  sense  of  HS'i  to  be  to  stretch,  which  gives  for 
the  dead  the  meaning,  "  stretched  out"  (in  languorem  projeeti),  and  for  the  giants 
the  meaning  extended,  in  the  sense  of  proceri  (11). — It  is  not  possible  to  ascend  or 
return  from  the  realm  of  the  dead,  Jobvii.  9,  xiv.  12.  No  attempt  is  made  to 
reconcile  this  with  the  return  to  life,  1  Kings  xvii.  21  f.,  2  Kings  iv.  34  f.  ;  the 
question  may  be  solved  in  the  way  given  above.  The  Old  Testament  relates  only 
one  example  of  the  appearing  of  a  dead  person — viz.  of  Samuel,  1  Sam.  xxviii. 
(12).  The  popular  superstition  in  respect  to  conjuring  the  dead,  n'l3i<n-7^  i^l'l, 
3l«  Sxty,  is  strictly  prohibited.  Lev.  xix.  31,  xx.  6  ;  Deut.  xviii.  11.  The  term 
31X  properly  denotes  not  the  conjuror  himself,  but  the  spirit  which  is  conjured  by 
him,  and  is  supposed  to  speak  in  him.  This  is  shown  by  the  expressions  in  Lev. 
XX.  27  (where  the  necromancer  is  designated  as  ^i**  0513  n.'n.''  O  nu^K  IK  U'"**),  1 
Sam.  xxviii.  7  (where  the  witch  of  Endor  is  called  31K  nSjlS),  and  in  ver.  8  of  the 
same  chapter  (where  necromancy  is  called  divination  through  the  Obh,  31X3  DDj^)  ; 
compare,  too,  Isa.  xxix.  4.  The  term  ^IK  is  hardly  to  be  explained  =  revenant,  re- 
turning (from  a  stem  3^K  ;  in  Arabic,  aba),  but  it  is  probably  the  same  word  with 
the  noun  niX,  which  signifies  a  leather  bottle  (properly,  something  blown 
up).  The  translation  of  the  LXX,  who  always  render  the  word  by  eyyaaTpifivdog, 
ventriloquist,  also  points  to  this  view.  Then,  by  means  of  a  metonymy,  the  plural 
ri'llli^,  leather  bottles,  is  used  to  indicate  the  necromancers  themselves  (1  Sam. 
xxviii.  3).  The  absurdity  of  necromancy  is  pointed  out  in  Isa.  viii.  19  (13)  ;  in 
opposition  to  this  the  people  are  directed  to  the  law  and  to  the  word  of  revelation, 
ver.  20  compared  with  Deut.  xviii.  15  (14). 

(1)  Compare,  also,  Ps.  cxlvi.  4. — To  this  are  to  be  added  expressions  such  as 
Ps.  xxxix.  14  :  "  Look  away  from  me,  that  I  may  recover  before  I  go  hence  and 
am  no  more  ;"  Job  vii.  21  :  "  Now  will  I  lay  myself  in  the  dust  ;  Thou  seekest 
me,  and  I  am  no  more  :"  Job  xiv.  10  :   "A  man  dies,  and  where  is  he  ?  " 


172  THE    DOCTRINES   AND    ORDINANCES    OF   MOSAISM.  [§    78. 

(2)  In  the  conception  of  a  realm  of  death  wliich  goes  through  the  whole  Old 
Testament,  and  which,  as  will  be  shown,  is  definitely  distinguished  from  the 
grave,  as  well  as  in  what  is  narrated  of  resurrections  from  the  dead  (1  Kings  xvii, 
21  ;  3  Kings  iv.  34),  and  what  is  prophesied  about  the  future  rising  of  the  dead, 
some  continued  existence  of  man  after  death  is  undoubtedly  presupposed.  The 
same  book  of  Ecclcsiastes  which,  xii.  7,  teaches  that  the  spirit  returns  to  God  who 
gave  it,  speaks,  ix.  10,  also  of  Sheol,  "to  which  thou  goest."  That  Job  vii.  8, 
xiv.  10,  speak  only  of  man's  disappearance  from  the  earthly  scene,  and  do  not 
mean  that  he  has  entirely  ceased  to  be,  is  shown  in  both  chapters  by  the  reference 
to  sojourning  in  the  kingdom  of  the  dead.  For  the  explanation  of  the  term  in 
Ps.  xxxix.  14,  compare  Ps.  xxxvii.  36.  We  may  say  indeed  that  man's  existence 
after  death  is  treated  in  the  Old  Testament  so  much  as  a  matter  of  course,  that 
the  reality  of  it  is  never  the  subject  of  doubt.  It  is  not  even  true  of  the  book  of 
Job  that  "  a  wavering  between  the  traditional  representations  of  a  kingdom  of 
the  dead,  and  the  consideration  of  the  dead  simply  as  beings  wliich  no  more  exist, " 
is  found  here  (see  F.  Beck,  I.e.  p.  475).  The  doubts  with  which  the  Israelitish 
spirit  wrestled  referred  only  to  the  how  of  existence  after  death  ;  but  the  liarder 
this  struggle  became  because  the  mind  could  not  free  itself  from  the  idea  of 
Sheol,  the  less  are  we  entitled  to  see  in  this  idea  only  something  outwardly  derived 
from  the  j^opular  belief. 

(3)  On  Job  iv.  15,  see  note  12. — The  book  of  Wisdom,  iii.  1,  is  the  first  to 
speak  of  souls  of  the  dead  ;  then  the  New  Testament,  Rev.  vi.  9  ;  also  Trvevjuara, 
1  Pet.  iii.  19,  Heb.  xii.  23. 

(4)  On  the  other  hand,  indeed,  the  death  of  the  soul  is  spoken  of  in  Num.  xxiii. 
10,  Job  xxxvi.  14,  which  is  to  be  explained  by  the  well-known  usage  by  which 
'E^ilJ,  etc.,  takes  the  place  of  the  jiersonal  pronoun  (comp.  §  70). 

(5)  So  Himpel,  I.e.,  p.  33  ;  comp.  also  Delitzsch,  BiUicnl  Psychology.,  p.  531. 

(6)  Tacitus  writes,  I.e.,  of  the  Jews  :  "Corpora  condere,  quam  cremare,  e  more 
^gyptio  ;  eademque  cura  et  de  infernis  persuasio." — For  the  rest,  compare  my 
Commentdtiones,  p.  38,  and' Himpel,  I.e.  p.  31. 

(7)  See  Hupfeld  in  the  Zeitschrift  fur  die  Kvnde  des  Morgenlandes,  ii.  (1839)  p. 
463,  and  in  his  Commentary  on.  the  Fmlms,  Ps.  vi.  6,  note. 

(8)  Not  only  because  the  burial  of  the  corpse  is  often  especially  mentioned 
along  with  it  (comp.  Gen.  xxv.  9,  xxxv.  39,  1.  13,  etc.),  but  chiefly  because  this 
formula,  and  also  the  cognate  one,  "to  go  to  one's  fathers"  (Deut.  xxxi. 
16  ;  1  Kings  ii.  10,  xvi.  38,  etc.),  are  used  in  speaking  of  those  who  were  not 
united  with  their  fathers  in  the  grave,  as  Abraham,  Aaron,  Moses,  David,  and 
others.  See  a  complete  list  of  the  passages  belonging  to  this  subiect  in  Bottcher, 
§  112  ff.  •' 

(9)  Thus  "113  appears  in  Isa.  xiv.  14,  Ezek.  xxxii.  23,  Ps.  Ixxxviii.  7  ;  also  the 
phrase  113  Ti;  (Ps.  xxviii.  1,  xxx.  4  ;  Prov.  i.  12  ;  Isa.  xxxviii.  18  ;  Ezek.  xxvi. 
20),  which  in  itself  might  refer  to  the  grave,  is  probably  as  a  rule  to  be  referred 
to  Sheol  (see  Bcittcher,  I.e.,  §  165). 

(10)  Though  God's  omnipotence  reaches  down  to  the  world  beneath,  which  is 
present  to  Him  at  all  times  unconcealed  (Job  xxvi.  6  ;  Prov.  xv.  11  ;  Ps.  cxxxix. 
8),  still  there  is  no  experience  of  communion  with  God  to  those  resting  there 
(Ps.  Ixxxviii.  6). 

(11)  See  Ewald,  History  of  Israel,  i.  p.  227  f.— On  the  contrary,  there  is  no 
probability  in  Bcittcher's  view  (I.e.,  §  193  ff.),  that  the  word  primarily  designates 
the  race  of  giants  as  "  liurled  down,"  and  that  then,  these  fallen  giants  being 
regiirded  iis  pars  jwtior  of  the  inhabitants  of  Sheol,  the  name  was  extended  to 
these  in  general. 

(12)  We  may  look  upon  it  as  decided  that  the  narrative  in  1  Sam.  xxviii.  is 
intended  to  be  so  understood  (as  the  LXX  liave  done  in  1  Chron.  x.  13  and  Sir. 
xlvi.  20  (23)),  and  that  it  does  not  record  a  mere  deception,  as  the  older  theo- 
logians interpreted  it.  (Besides  the  literature  cited  in  Keil's  Commentary,  the 
essay,  "  Die  Gcschiclite  von  der  Zauberin  zu  Endor,"  in  the  Zeitschr.  fur  Protes- 
tantismtis  vnd  Kirchr,  1851,  xxii.  \^.  138  IT.,  deserves  to  be  noticed.)     On  the  con- 


§  79.]       DOCTRINE  OF  MOSAISM  ON  THE  CONDITION  AFTER  DEATH.         173 

trary,  it  is  not  the  appearing  of  a  dead  person  that  is  spoken  of  in  Job  iv.  12-15, 
bat  of  a  divine  revehition  ;  in  ver.  15,  nn  does  not  indicate  a  spirit,  but  the 
breathing  by  which  the  appearance  announced  itself. 

(13)  Isa.  viii.  19  :  "Shall  not  a  people  seek  unto  its  God? — ^the  dead  for  the 
living?"  Ewald's  explanation  of  the  latter  clause  is  false — "instead  of  the 
living"  (of  the  living  God).  It  does  not  follow  from  Isa.  viii.  19,  as  Diestel  has 
said  (in  Herzog's  Redl-Eacyldo}-).  xvii.  p.  482),  that  even  enlightened  prophets  be- 
lieved in  the  possibility  of  inquiring  of  the  dead,  but  rather  the  contrary. 

(14)  In  this  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  agree.  When  our  Lord  says,  in 
Luke  xvi.  29,  "They  have  Moses  and  the  prophets,  let  them  hear  them,"  He 
speaks  entirely  in  the  spirit  of  the  Old  Testament. 

§79. 
{Contimuition.) 

In  no  part  of  the  Old  Testament  is  a  difference  in  the  lot  of  those  in  the  realm 
of  death  distinctly  spoken  of .  Job  iii.  17-19  describes  them  there  as  all  alike. 
Only  in  Isa.  xiv.  15,  Ezek.  xxxii.  23,  where  the  fallen  conquerors  are  relegated 
to  the  uttermost  depths  (T';3~'r^|)T)j  can  w^e  find  an  indication  of  different  grades 
in  the  realm  of  the  dead — perhajDS  in  the  sense  in  which  Josephus  {Bell.  Jud.  iii. 
8.  5)  speaks  of  a  a6r]q  anoTMrepog  for  self-murderers.  Elsewhere,  only  a  division  into 
peoples  and  races,  and  not  a  division  of  the  just  and  unjust,  is  spoken  of.  "  To- 
morrow," says  Samuel  to  Saul,  1  Sam.  xxviii.  19,  '•  shalt  thou  and  thy  sons  be 
with  me."  The  inhabitants  of  the  kingdom  of  the  dead  "  have  no  more  reward," 
Eccles.  ix.  5  f.  In  itself,  the  condition  in  Sheol,  which  is  in  the  main  the  most 
indefinite  existence  2)ossible,  is  neithav  blessedness  (aithough  longed  for  as  a  rest  by 
him  who  is  weary  of  life,  .Job  iii.  13-19)  nor  positive  unblessedness ;  for  to  those 
who  are  swept  away  in  (he  midst  of  the  enjoyment  of  life  the  punishment  consists 
in  ])eiu(r  thus  carried  away,  Num.  xvi.  30  fl. ,  Ps.  Iv.  16.  The  Mosaic  retribution 
lias  its  sphere  entirely  on  this  side  of  the  grave  (1).  Of  the  traces  of  belief  in  a 
heavenly  life  beyond  the  grave  which  have  been  supposed  to  be  found  in  the  Penta- 
teuch, the  translation  of  Enoch,  Gen.  v.  24,  can  alone  come  into  consideration. 
But  that  is  not  a  testimony  to  a  higher  existence  of  the  soul  after  death  ;  for  the 
meaning  of  the  passage  is  that  Enoch  never  died — that  is,  his  body  and  soul  were 
never  separated  (2).  In  it,  as  in  the  history  of  Elijah's  translation  (2  Kings  ii.), 
there  lies  rather  the  declaration,  that  even  before  the  coming  of  death's  van- 
quisher some  specially  favored  men  were  excepted  from  the  curse  of  death  and  of 
the  kino-dom  of  death  which  hangs  over  man.  These  narratives,  then,  contain  an 
indirect  corroboration  of  the  position  that,  according  to  the  Old  Testament,  deatii 
is  not  unconditionally  connected  with  human  nature.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
passage  on  the  death" of  Moses,  Deut.  xxxiv.  5  (comp.  §  31  with  note  3),  has  no 
relation  to  this  subject  ;  and  just  as  little  is  Num.  xxiii.  10 — "Let  my  soul  die 
the  death  of  the  righteous" — a  testimony  to  a  belief  in  eternal  life  (for  which  the 
passage  was  formerly  often  taken).  The  meaning  of- these  words  is  rather  that 
Balaam  wished  he  might  be  allowed  to  die  after  a  life  so  richly  blessed,  as  was 
the  case  with  the  righteous  in  Israel. 

But  it  is  clearly  expressed  in  the  Pentateuch  that  the  relation  of  the  righteous  to 
God  is  not  cancelled  after  death.     The  blood  of  the  murdered   Abel  cries  to  God, 


174  THE    DOCTRINES   AND    ORDINANCES   OF   MOSAISM.  [§    79. 

Gen.  iv.  10.  The  relation  into  which  God  entered  with  the  patriarchs  continues  ; 
for,  long  after  the  patriarchs  had  fallen  asleep,  He  calls  Himself  the  God  of 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  ;  Ex.  iii.  6  compared  with  Gen.  xxvi.  24,  xxviii.  13. 
"  But  God  is  not  a  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  living"  (Matt.  xxii.  32).  To  him 
who  has  an  eternal  value  for  God  an  eternal  existence  is  assured  (3). 

(1)  Compare  the  account  of  the  Mosaic  doctrine  of  retribution,  §  89  f. 

(2)  In  speaking  of  Enoch,  the  word  "  dying"  is  not  used,  Gen.  v.  24,  but  it  is 
said  that  God  took  him  away  (np'7)  because  he  walked  with  Him. 

(3)  On  the  other  presuppositions  of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  and  of 
eternal  life  contained  in  Mosaism,  see  further  on.  The  doctrine  of  the  resurrec- 
tion forms  a  doctrine  of  prophetic  theology  ;  and  the  foreboding  wrestling  of 
Israel's  sages  with  the  enigmas  of  death  and  the  realm  of  the  dead  is  discussed  in 
the  third  part  of  the  Old  Testament  Theology. 


THIRD  DIVISION. 

THE  COYENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE 

THEOCRACY. 

FIRST    CHAPTER. 

THE  NATURE  OF  THE  COVENANT. 

§80. 

Preliminary  Remarhs  and  General  Survey. 

The  form  in  which  the  covenant  of  God  with  Israel  is  made,  Ex.  xix.-xxiv., 
is  a  contract  resting  on  the  promises  and  engagements  of  the  two  contracting  par- 
ties (see  xix.  5,  8,  xxiv.  3,  7  ;  comp.  Josh.  xxiv.  15  ff.).  Yet  the  relation  of  the 
parties  is  not  purely  mutual  (1).  In  the  first  place,  the  theocratic  covenant  of  law 
rests  on  the  covenant  of  promise  ;  in  both,  even  in  the  covenant  of  the  law,  the  in- 
itiative (the  setting  up  of  the  covenant,  D'pn,  Gen.  ix.  9,  xvii.  7,  etc.)  comes  from 
God  as  an  act  of  grace  :  "I  am  Jehovah,  thy  God,  who  brought  thee  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt,"  Ex.  xx.  2  ;  "  I  have  brought  you  to  me,"  xix.  4,  etc.  Accord- 
ingly, it  is  Jehovah  alone  who  fixes  the  conditions  of  the  covenant  ("I  am  holy,  be 
ye  also  holy,"  Lev.  xi.  44  f.),  and  on  whom  depend  the  maintenayice  of  the  regu- 
lations of  the  treaty  and  the  final  realization  of  the  aim  of  the  covenant.  Thus 
the  covenant  is  primarily  dia6f]K7j,  a  divine  institution  (2),  and  only  on  this  foun- 
dation is  it  avvdrjKTj,  a  treaty.  How  r\'"i3  n"i3  is  used,  even  where  God  alone  pledges 
Himself,  is  shown  especially  by  Ex.  xxxiv.  10.  In  the  usage  of  the  Peutateuch, 
the  expression  ^'13  m.2)  with  D;*  or  riH  \with^  is  used  throughout  to  signify  the 
closing  of  God's  covenant  with  Israel.  On  the  contrary,  in  the  later  books  a 
peculiar  usage  appears,  and  a  distinction  is  made  between  rci.a  n^3,  in  connection 
with  7  [to],  and  in  connection  with  D>?  or  r\X  (3).  The  first  expresses  the  idea  that 
in  closing  a  covenant,  the  covenant  is  laid  by  the  one  party  on  tlie  other  ;  compare 
Isa.  Iv.  3,  Ixi.  8  ;  Jer  xxxii.  40  ;  Ezek.  xxxiv.  25  (4).  In  the  patriarchal  covenant 
of  2womise,  the  first  element,  that  of  Siaflr/Kr/,  institution,  naturally  appears  more 
prominently.  The  constituting  of  the  covenant  in  Gen.  xv.  is  a  pure  act  of  divini 
promise.  In  the  vision,  when  deep  sleep  and  great  darkness  had  fallen  on  him, 
Abraham  sees  (ver.  12)  afllame  of  fire  pass  between  the  parts  of  the  divided  animals. 
The  meaning  of  the  occurrence  is  not,  as  has  been  supposed  from  Jer.  xxxiv.  18  f., 
that  it  shall  be  done  to  him  who  breaks  the  covenant  as  has  been  done  to  these 
divided  animals  (comp.  Judg.  xix.  29  ;  1  Sam.  xi.  7),  as  similar  customs  occur  in 


17G      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  81. 

Greek  and  Roman  antiquity  at  tlie  making  of  covenants  (Livy,  i.  24  ;  Plutarch, 
Qucest.  Bom.  cap.  iii.  ;  Homer,  Iliad,  iii.  298  iT.)  (5).  This  meaning  of  such  cov- 
enant observances  (as  is  plain  in  Jer.  xxxiv.)  is  to  be  looked  upon  as  only  second- 
ary. The  original  meaning  is,  that  the  two  halves  denote  the  two  contracting 
parties,  and  the  flame  passing  through  denotes  their  union  by  Jehovah,  who  alone 
is  He  who  constitutes  the  covenant.  On  the  contrary,  the  act  in  Ex.  xxiv.,  in 
which  the  theocratic  covenant  is  made,  refers  to  both  parties  (G). 

According  to  its  nature,  the  covenant  presents  itself  under  the  following  heads  : 

1.  The  divine  act,  from  which  the  covenant  proceeds,  viz.  the  divine  election, 
and  the  promise  annexed  to  it. 

2.  Man''s  obligation.  He  again  who  prescribes  the  obligation  is  God;  that  to 
which  man  is  bound,  is  tlie  revelation  of  tlie  divine  will  in  the  law,  especially  the 
Decalogue,  which  is  the  obligatory  document  in  the  stricter  sense  ;  but  the  symbol 
of  obligation  is  in  particular  the  sign  of  circumcision,  imposed  on  those  who  are 
subject  to  the  covenant  obligations. 

3.  Thus,  according  as  the  nation  performs  its  obligation,  the  divine  retrilnitioii 
is  determined,  which,  however,  is  so  carried  out  that  at  the  end  the  divine  pur- 
pose of  election  must  come  to  be  realized. 

(1)  As,  for  example,  the  matter  has  been  quite  wrongly  taken  up  by  Spencer,  Be 
leg.  Helrr.  Bit.,  ed.  Tubing.,  p.  234,  and  especially  p.  236,  etc. 

(2)  On  the  other  hand,  any  relation  instituted  by  God  between  Himself  and 
man  (like  the  promise  of  grace  given  to  David,  Ps.  Ixxxix.  4),  and  indeed  any 
regulation  and  limit  laid  by  Him  on  the  creature  (comp.  passages  like  Jer.  xxxiii. 
20,  Hos.  ii.  20,  Zech.  xi.  10,  etc.),  in  particular  every  theocratic  ordinance  (as 
the  institution  of  the  Sabbath,  Ex.  xxxi.  16),  may  be  characterized  as  iT'lS. 

(3)  See,  e.g.,  Jer.  xxxi.  31,  33.     Comp.  Gesenius,  Thesaurus,  ii.  p.  718. 

(4)  The  Pentateuch  uses  ri'13  n"}3  with  /  only  in  speaking  of  the  covenants  of 
Israel  with  Canaan  and  its  idols. 

(5)  Iliad,  iii,  298  if.  : 

"  All-glorioii9  Jove,  and  ye,  the  powers  of  heaven, 
Whoso  [ihall  violate  this  contract  ttrst, 
So  be  the  brains  of  them  and  of  their  sons 
Poured  out,  as  we  this  wine  pour  on  the  earth." 

( Cowper's  translation.) 

(6)  See  the  doctrine  of  sacrifice,  §  121. 


FIRST   DOCTRIiNE. 

THE   DIVINE   ELECTION. 

■    §  81. 
Israel's  Election  as  the  Free  Act  of  God^s  Love.     in3  and  VT . 

The  adoption  of  Israel  as  the  covenant  peo])le  is  a  free  act  of  God,  or  in  other 
words,  an  act  of  divine  love,  and  necessary  onh/  so  far  as  God  has  hoiuui  Himself  hy 
His  oath,  — thnt  Is,  as  a  proof  of  His  tnitli  and  liis  faithfulness, — but  is  in  no  way 
dependent  on  man's  desert. 

These  propositions  are  expressed  in  the  entire  historical  guidance  of  the  people 
pf  revelation  from  Abraham's  calling  onwarvl  (1),  but  they  are  expressly  inrul,- 


§  81.]     Israel's  election  as  the  free  act  of  god's  love.        177 

cated  on  tlie  people  at  every  opportunity.  The  God  to  whom  the  earth  belongs 
will  have  Israel  for  His  own  property,  Ex.  xix.  5.  It  is  only  on  the  ground  of 
the  gracious  election  and  guidance  of  God  that  the  divine  commands  to  the 
people  are  given,  and  therefore  the  Decalogue,  Ex.  xx.  2,  places  at  its  forefront  the 
fact  of  election  (2).  In  Deuteronomy  especially  this  point  forms  one  of  the  fun- 
damental thoughts.  The  following  are  the  main  passages  :— vii.  7  f.,  "Jehovah 
has  not  set  His  love  upon  you  and  chosen  you  because  ye  are  more  than  all  nations, 
for  ye  are  the  least  of  all  nations  ;  but  because  Jehovah  has  loved  you,  and  that 
He  might  keep  the  oath  which  He  has  sworn  to  your  fathers."  The  divine 
Zo?;e  appears  here  as  the  first  point  in  the  founding  of  the  covenant  relation  with 
Israel.  Compare  further  viii.  17:  the  people  are  not  to  say,  "  My  might  and 
the  strength  of  my  hand  has  procured  me  such  power.  Think  on  Jehovah  thy 
God,  that  He  has  given  thee  strength  to  do  valiantly,  that  He  may  keep  His  cov- 
enant ;"  alsoix.  4-6  :  the  people  of  Israel  shall  not  say  in  their  hearts  that  be- 
cause of  their  own  righteousness  God  has  driven  out  the  nations  of  Canaan  ; 
that  was  done  partly  because  of  the  godlessness  of  the  Canaanites,  and  partlyto 
fulfill  the  promises  given  to  the  fathers  ;   "for  thou  art  a  stiff  necked  people." 

The  divine  promise  is  sealed  by  the  oath  of  Ood,  which  is  given  whenever  the 
matter  in  question  is  an  unchangeable  decree,  the  performance  of  which  is  not  to 
depend  on  contingencies  (Heb.  vi.  17)  (3). 

Besides  the  term  in3  [to  choose],  in  which  the  freedom  of  God's  gracious 
purpose  stands  out  most  strongly,  the  word  J.*T,  to  Imoic,  is  used  to  characterize 
the  divine  decree  of  election  ;  thus,  first,  Gen.  xviii.  19,  also  Amos  iii.  2,  Hos. 
xiii.  5  (4).  All  knowing  is  an  appropriation,  by  which  the  strangeness  between 
the  perceiving  subject  and  the  object  is  removed.  Thus  J^T  has  in  various  senses 
a  more  pregnant  meaning  than  that  of  mere  theoretical  knowledge  ;  it  includes 
the  exercise  of  the  heart's  sympathy  in  taking  in  an  object,  and  so  means  to  take 
knowledge  of  anything  with  love,  care,  and  the  like — to  care  for  one  ;  compare 
Prov.  xxvii.  23,  where  it  stands  parallel  with  3?  ^""^  (to  direct  the  heart,  the  at- 
tention, to  anything),  and  thus  forms  the  opposite  of  Di*?,  to  reject  (sec  e.g.  Job 
ix.  21).  It  stands  thus  for  the  divine  care  for  the  righteous,  Ps.  i.  6,  xxxvii. 
18,  etc.  ;  thus,  Ex.  xxxiii.  12,  the  words  "  I  know  thee  by  name"  express  the  in- 
ward relation  of  personal  appropriation  in  which  Moses  stands  to  Jehovah  (corre- 
sponding to  the  words,  "Thou  hast  found  grace  in  mine  eyes").  But  as  i'T  is 
said  of  God  not  simply  in  reference  to  the  relation  in  which  He  already  stands  to 
man,  but  also  in  reference  to  His  placing  man  in  a  relation  to  Him  in  virtue  of 
which  he  acknowledges  himself  as  His  property,  i^T^  becomes  another  name  for 
the  divine  election  (synonymous  with  in|)  (5). 

(1)  Compare  the  historical  section,  §  22  ff. 

(2)  Ex.  XX.  2:  "I,  Jehovah,  am  thy  God,  who  hath  brought  thee  out  of 
the  land  of  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of  bondage." 

(3)  In  Heb.  vi.  17  the  divine  oath  attests  to  auerdflerov  ttjq  pov/J/c  avrov. 
Compare  Achelis'  excellent  paper,  "  Ueber  den  Schwur  Gottes  bei  sich  selbst," 
in  the  Theol.  Studien  taid  Kritihen,  1867.  The  reader  may  see  from  that  essay 
how  well  worth  while  it  is  to  follow  up  such  special  points  in  Holy  Scripture. 
There  are  promises  and  threats  which  are  uttpred  conditionally,  for  which  the 
main  passage  is  Jer.  xviii.  7-10,     The  promise  wiiich  is  uttered  conditionally  to 


l'?8      THE  COVENAKT  OP  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  ANT)  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  82. 

Abraham  in  Gon.  xii.  is  made  unconditional  bj'  the  oath  of  God  in  chap,  xxii., 
when  Abraham  is  proved. 

(4)  On  Gen.  xviii.  19,  comp.  §  23  with  note  C— Am.  iii.  2,  "You  only  have 
I  known  of  all  the  families  of  the  earth."— This  pregnant  designation  of  the  di- 
vine knowledge  appears  frequently  in  the  New  Testament  yiyvuaKeiv. 

(5)  The  earlier  theologians  expressed  this  briefly  thus  :  V^"  does  not  mean 
merely  nosse  cum  affectu^  but  also  cum  effectu. 

§82. 
Forms  in  which  the  Election  of  the  People  is  expressed. 

The  divine  election  of  the  people  is  expressed  in  the  following  forms  : — 
Jehovah  is  the  Father  of  His  people  ;  Israel  His  first-born  son  ;  His  property  out 
of  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  ;  the  holy,  priestly  people.  All  these  ideas  are 
correlated. 

1.  In  the  Old  Testament,  the  meaning  of  the  divine  fatherhood  is  not  physical, 
as  if  God  were  called  the  Father  of  men  because  He  gives  them  natural  life  and 
preserves  them  in  it,  but  ethical.  It  denotes  the  relation  of  love  and  moral  com- 
munion in  which  Jehovah  has  placed  Israel  to  Himself.  This  relation  is  quite 
unique  ;  Jehovah  is  only  the  Father  of  the  chosen  jjeople,  not  the  Father  of  the  other 
nations.  When  Jehovah,  in  Ex.  iv.  22  f.,  bids  Moses  say  to  Pharaoh  :  "  Israel  is 
my  son,  even  my  first-born  ;  and  I  say  unto  thee,  Let  my  son  go  that  he  may 
serve  me,"  we  may  in  the  expression  "first-born  son"  find  an  indication  that  at 
some  time  other  nations  also  are  to  enter  into  this  sonship  ;  but  the  term  is  pri- 
marily to  be  explained  by  the  contrast  with  Pharaoh's  first-born — Israel  is  the 
same  to  Jehovah  as  Pharaoh's  first-born  son  is  to  him.  So  also  is  Deut.  xxxii.  ti, 
the  second  main  passage  in  the  Pentateuch,  to  be  explained  :  "Do  ye  thus  re- 
quite Jehovah,  O  foolish  people  and  unwise  ?  is  not  He  thy  Father  that  hath  creat- 
ed thee?  hath  He  not  made  thee  and  established  thee?"  The  words  HK^J^^p^ 
njp,  do  not  here  indicate  the  creation  of  the  people  in  the  same  sense  that  all  men 
are  made  by  God,  but  signify  those  divine  acts  by  which  Israel  is  established  and 
prepared  as  the  people  of  God's  possession  and  covenant,  and  so  simply  denote  its 
election.  In  this  sense,  in  Isa.  xliii.  1,  15,  xlv.  11,  Jehovah  is  called  Israel's 
creator  and  former  ;  and  when  it  is  said,  in  Ixiv.  7,  "  But  now,  O  Jehovah,  Thou 
art  our  Father ;  we  are  the  clay,  and  Thou  the  potter  ;  and  we  all  are  the  work 
of  Thy  hand,"  the  meaning  is,  that  Israel  owes  to  the  gracious  power  of  its  God  all 
that  it  is  and  has  ;  comp.  Ps.  c.  3  (1). — The  fatherhood  of  Jehovah  was  displayed 
in  the  deliverance  of  the  people  from  Egypt,  IIos.  xi.  1  ;  then  in  the  divine  guidance 
through  the  wilderness,  which  was  a  fatherly  discipline,  Deut.  viii.  5,  compare 
Hos.  xi.  3  ;  and  so  likewise  all  subsequent  redemption  and  providential  guidance 
of  Israel  is  a  manifestation  of  the  divine  fatherhood  (see  Isa.  Ixiii.  16)  (2)  ;  Jer- 
emiah xxxi.  9  declares  that  when  the  ten  rejected  tribes  return  with  weeping, 
and  Jehovah  leads  them,  He  says,  "  For  I  am  a  father  to  Israel"  (compare  ver.  20, 
"Is  Ephraim  my  dear  son  ?").  Also  in  Mai.  ii.  10,  compared  with  i.  6,  the  idea  of 
the  divine  fatherhood  is  to  be  understood  in  the  same  way.  The  prophet  denounces 
the  marriages  which  the  people  contracted  with  heathen  women  after  repudiating 
their  Israelitish  spouses.     "When  it  is  said  in  this  connection,  "  Have  we  not  all 


§  82.]       FORMS  IN'  WHICH  ELECTION  OF  THE  PEOPLE  IS  EXPEESSED,       Vi'J 

one  father?  has  not  one  God  created  us  ?  wliy  do  we  deal  treacherously  every  man 
against  his  brother,  by  profaning  the  covenant  of  our  fathers  ?"  the  heathen  can- 
not possibly  be  included  along  with  Israel,  and  the  ^J^"J3  is  to  be  understood,  as  in 
the  above-cited  passages,  of  the  creation  and  preparation  of  Israel  to  be  the  cov- 
enant people. — As  Israel  as  a  whole  is  called  OocVs  son,  so  the  name  is  also  trans- 
ferred to  the  members  of  the  nation,  Deut.  xiv.  1  :  "Ye  are  sons  of  Jehovah,  your 
God."  Still  this  name  is  not  to  be  understood  as  if  every  citizen  of  the  theocracy 
could  apply  to  himself  individually  the  God-sonship.  It  is  only  the  dody  of  the  cove- 
nant people  that  have  the  name  "  sonsof  God,"  and  the  Israelite  has  a  share  in  the 
God-sonship  only  in  virtue  of  being  incorporated  into  this  body.  The  individual 
personal  sonship  of  God  did  not  appear  till  later  in  the  theocratic  kingdom  (2). 

2.  The  same  relation  between  Israel  and  God  which  rests  on  the  divine  election 
is  expressed  in  the  appellations — people  of  GocVs possession,  a  holy  people.  Thus, 
after  the  words  of  Deut.  xiv.  just  quoted, — "  Ye  are  sons  of  Jehovah  your  God," 
— ver.  2  follows — "Thou  art  an  holy  people  to  Jehovah  thy  God,  and  Jehovah 
hath  chosen  thee  to  be  a  peculiar  peoptle  ("^Y^?  OJ-!  =  a  people  oi  proj)ei'ty)  unto  Him- 
self, above  all  the  nations  that  are  on  the  earth  ;"  comp.  vii.  6,  and  for  the 
n^J?,  Ex.  xix.  5,  Ps.  cxxxv.  4  (3).  In  Deut.  iv.  20,  nSnj  DJT  stands  for  it,  which 
specially  teaches  that  God  obtained  this  people  for  Himself  by  a  special  act  (comp. 
§  83).  The  phrase  holy  people  (as  is  mentioned  in  §  44)  conveys  negatively  the 
idea  of  separation  from  all  other  people,  and  positively  of  admission  or  introduction 
into  communion  w-ith  God  ;  as  is  said  in  Ex.  xix.  4,  "  I  have  brought  you  to  my- 
self" (comp.  Lev.  xx.  24,  26).  In  virtue  of  this  attitude  to  God,  Israel  is  a  ^:»rjesiZy 
people  :  xix.  6,  "Ye  shall  be  unto  me  D'JlJ^  ^5^9"^"  V^-  ^-  ^  kingdom  of  priests]. 
The  expression  MDlDD  may  denote  Tcinghood  (this  is  the  more  common  meaning) 
and  hingdom.  If  we  take  the  first  meaning,  and  translate  "  Ye  shall  be  a  priestly 
kinghood  to  me"  (the  translation  of  the  LXX  takes  it  thus— /3acriA«ox'  lEpdrev/m,) 
both  the  priestly  and  the  kingly  dignity  of  the  people  are  expressed,  and  both 
predicated  of  God's  people  on  the  ground  of  this  passage  (1  Pet.  ii.  9  ;  Rev.  i.  G, 
V.  10).  Thus  Keil,  against  which  we  need  only  remark  that  the  Old  Testament 
assigns  a  position  of  dominion  in  the  world  to  the  people  of  God  as  such,  but  still 
never  uses  the  term  "  royal  people.''''  On  the  second  and  more  general  explanation, 
Israel  is  a  priestly  kingdom — that  is,  a  community  of  priests  under  King  Jehovah. 
Vocation  to  the  immediate  service  of  the  true  God  is  the  main  idea  in  the  priestly 
character  of  the  covenant  people.  Israel's  mediatorial  position  toward  the  other 
nations  may  also,  perhaps,  be  indicated  ;  but  this  is  not  followed  out  any  further 
in  the  Pentateuch,  which  only  emphasizes  the  separation  of  Israel  from  all  the 
other  nations  of  the  earth.  This  separation  is,  in  the  first  instance,  effected  in 
an  external  manner.  Israel  is  "the  people  that  dwells  alone"  (PK?'  Tl^?),  and  is 
not  reckoned  among  the  nations  of  the  world  (Num.  xxiii.  9  ;  Deut.  xxxiii.  28). 
Further,  all  unclean  persons,  eunuchs,  those  begotten  in  incest  (the  latter  is  probably 
the  meaning  of  the  difficult  word  "'I'?'?),  Deut.  xxiii.  2  f.,  are  excluded  from  the 
congregation  ;  and  those  who  have  defiled  themselves  for  a  time  must  also  with- 
draw themselves  during  this  period  from  intercourse  with  the  people.  God 
sanctifies  the  people  to  Himself  positively  by  dwelling  among  them,  by  His  rev- 
elation in  word  and  deed,  by  every  institution  on  which  is  imprinted  the  imique 


180      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITIT  ISllA  EL  AND  THE  THEOCKACY.    [§82. 

rt4ation  between  Israel  and  God,  and  finally,  by  placing  His  Spirit  in  tbe  con- 
gregation. Still,  in  all  this  it  is  only  an  objective  relation  which  is  established  : 
every  Israelite  has  a  share  in  this  holiness  in  virtue  of  natural  birth,  and  in  virtue 
of  the  outward  connection  of  his  life  with  the  holy  congregation, — not  in  virtue  of 
the  new  birth  of  the  Spirit  and  the  communion  of  a  spiritual  life  with  God  ;  for 
Jehovah's  Spirit  (which  is  placed  in  the  congregation,  comp.  Isa.  Ixiii.  11) 
rests  only  on  the  leading  organs  of  the  theocracy,  not  on  all  its  members,  Num. 
xi.  16  ff.  (comp.  §  65).  Nevertheless,  a  distinction,  within  the  theocratic  union, 
between  Israel  according  to  the  flesh,  and  the  covenant  people  who  are  really  seek- 
ing after  the  true  God  (Ps.  xxiv.  6),  the  race  of  God's  children  (Ixxiii.  15),  occurs 
in  the  Old  Testament,  as  will  be  shown  more  particularly  afterward.  Hence 
the  names  "holy  people,"  "priestly  kingdom,"  "God's  peculiar  people,"  are 
names  which  are  full  of  the  future,  prophetic  types  of  that  which  is  to  come,  since 
the  ransomed  Israel  of  the  future  shall  be  called  "  sons  of  the  living  God"  in  the 
full  significance  of  the  word  ('n~7X  'J3),  Hos.  ii.  1  (4). 

3.  The  othei-  nations,  as  D'U  (which  is  a  purely  quantitative  idea),  form  a  great 
profane  mass.  The  uniqueness  of  the  covenant  people  in  distinction  from  the 
heathen  corresponds  to  Jehovah's  uniqueness  as  the  true  God  in  contrast  to  the 
heathen  gods  as  nothings  (§  43  f.).  Thus  the  contrast  between  Israel  and  the  C.iJ 
has  a  signification  quite  different  from  that  betwixt  Greeks  and  barbarians  (with 
which  it  has  sometimes  been  compared)  (5),  and  makes  Israel  the  object  of  the 
fiercest  hatred  to  other  nations.  Still,  even  from  the  standpoint  of  Mosaism,  the 
theocratic  exclusiveness  is  not  al}solutely  exclusive ;  for,  aside  from  the  fact  that  the 
people,  at  the  time  when  they  came  up  out  of  Egypt,  included  non-Israelitish  ele- 
ments (Ex.  xii.  38,  comp.  with  Lev.  xxiv.  10,  Num.  xi.  4),  every  heathen,  dwelling 
as  a  stranger  in  the  land,  could  by  circumcision  become  incorporated  among  the 
covenant  people,  and  thus  receive  a  share  of  all  the  gracious  benefits  bestowed  on 
Israel,  Ex.  xii.  48  ;  with  the  exception,  however,  of  the  Canaanitish  tribes,  which 
fell  under  the  curse.  To  these  the  Moabites  and  Ammonites  (Deut.  xxiii.  4  ff.) 
were  added  as  excluded  persons.  But  with  regard  to  the  Edo^nites  audi  Egyptians, 
it  was  ordained  that  their  naturalization,  in  virtue  of  which  they  should  come  to 
be  regarded  as  equal  to  the  Israelites  born  in  the  land,  was  not  to  take  place  till 
the  third  generation,  ver.  8  f.  ;  that  is,  that  the  great-grandchildren  of  Edomites 
and  Egyptians  who  had  lived  in  Israel  as  strangers  were  the  first  who  might  be 
incorporated  with  God's  people  through  circumcision.  In  particular,  heathen 
slaves  were  to  be  incorporated  into  the  family  by  circumcision,  Ex.  xii.  44.  From 
Gen.  xvii.  12,  compared  with  ver.  23,  where  Abraham  was  compelled  to  circum- 
cise all  his  servants,  those  born  in  the  house  and  those  bought  from  strangers,  it 
follows  that  this  passage  is  not  to  be  understood  as  merely  allowing  slaves  to  be 
circumcised,  but  as  actually  commanding  this. 

(1)  [L.  Schixlze,  in  his  review  of  the  first  edition  of  this  work  in  the  Allgem. 
literar.  Anseiger,  1874,  criticises  the  omission  of  the  thought  of  a  general  father- 
hood of  God  grounded  in  the  creation,  as  constituting  tlie  presupposition  for  the 
special  fatherhood  of  (4od  for  Israel — a  tliought  implied  in  Is.  Ixiv.  7  [A.  V. 
8]  comp.  with  xlv.  9,  12,  and  lying  also  in  Jer.  iii.  19.  That  the  Creator  is  a 
father — the  comparison  is  quite  obvious — is  often  intended,  we  m:ty  admit ;  but 
the  fatherhood  of  God  in  respect  to  Israel  expresses  his  sjjecial  relation  to  IsraeU 


§   83.]  THE   SERVANT   OF   JEHOVAH.  l8l 

and  Jer.  3,  19  is  most  naturally  translated,  "how  shall  I  put  thee  among  the 
children,"  i.e.  regard  and  treat  thee  as  a  son  (so  Graf,  s,  I.)  but  not  as  Schultz, 
"  portion  thee  among  the  children,"  or  as  Keil,  "make  thee  to  stand  among  the 
sous."] 

(2)  Hos.  xi.  1  :  "  When  Israel  was  a  child,  then  I  loved  him  and  called  my  son 
out  of  Egypt." — Deut.  viii.  5  :  "As  a  man  chasteneth  his  son,  so  Jehovah  thy 
God  chasteneth  thee.  "—Isa.  Ixiii.  16  :  "  Doubtless  Thou  art  our  Father,  Abraham 
is  ignorant  of  us,  and  Israel  acknowledges  us  not  :  Thou,  Jehovah,  art  our 
Father  ;  our  Redeemer  is  Thy  name  from  everlasting." 

(3)  In  the  n7Jp  lies  the  idea  of  precious  property,  which  one  has  selected  for 
himself,  v/hich  one  has  set  aside  ;  LXX  :  lao^  Trepiovaio^. 

(4)  In  this  signification,  the  New  Testament  applies  these  names  to  the 
Christian  church. 

(5)  It  was  even  acknowledged  by  the  heathen  that  the  people  of  Israel  fidvovc  aTrdv- 
Tuv  eOvuv  a.KOLV(jv7iTovq  elvai  r^f  rrpof  a?.?M  kdvoQ  ^TTi/ic^iag.     Diodor.  Sic.  Elclog.  xxxiv. 


SECOKD    DOCTRINE. 

MAN'S   OBLIGATION. 

§83. 

TJie  Servant  of  Jehovah. 

The  covenant  of  promise  with  Abraham  was  made  upon  the  condition  that 
he  and  his  descendants  bind  themselves  to  a  godly  life  and  to  obedience  to  God's 
will,  Gen.  xvii.  1  f.,  xviii.  19  (1).  The  ^ame  co?idition  is  prescribed  to  the  people,  Ex. 
xix.  5,  and  accepted  by  the  people,  ver.  8  ;  comp.  xxiv.  3  (2).  Laid  under  this 
obligation  to  their  God,  the  Israelites  are  the  sertants  of  Jehovah,  whom  He  has 
purchased  by  redeeming  them  from  Egyptian  bondage,  and  who,  therefore,  are 
exempt  from  all  earthly  lordship  by  being  bound  to  the  service  of  God,  Lev.  xxv. 
42,  55,  xxvi.  13  (3).  Thus  "servants  of  God"  is  a  designation  of  Israel,  es- 
pecially in  the  liturgical  psalms  (Ps.  cxiii.  1,  etc.).  But  the  idea  of  the  servant  of 
God  is  complete  only  when  he  who  is  bound  to  God  also  binds  himself  to  God's 
will,  following  God  perfectly, — the  praise  which  is  repeatedly  given  to  Caleb  and 
Joshua  as  servants  of  God,  Num.  xiv.  24  C"!nK  N^p;i),  xxxii.  12  finx  ^x"??? 
niri').  Josh.  xiv.  8  f.  Thus  to  the  servant  of  God  belongs  the  subjective  quality 
of  righteousness  (nj^^V).  This  word  expresses  in  general  the  conformity  of 
man  to  GocVs  will, — his  normal  relation  to  Oocl.  Inasmuch  as  God's  will  is  elective 
and  promissory,  Hp^l^  consists  in  full  surrender  to  elective  grace  and  the  divine 
word  of  promise.  Thus  it  is  the  righteousness  of  faith  ;  and  in  this  sense  it 
is  said  of  Abraham,  Gen.  xv.  6,  "He  believed  in  Jehovah,  and  it  was  imputed  to 
him  as  righteousness"  (4).  So  far  as  the  will  of  God  is  a  commanding  will,  ^pnif 
lies  in  the  fulfilling  of  God's  commands,  Deut.  vi.  25,  "ibtyro  i:S  ^nn  npiy^ 
niH'  \J3S  nxin  r\Vi'pr\~h2-m  nV;:;;«S.  inasmuch  also,  as  the  name  "servant  of 
God"  specially  designates  the  chosen  instruments  of  the  divine  lingdom,  an  essen- 
tial element  in  the  idea  is  the  subjunctive  factor  of /a^<^fM^n«ssw^  the  houseofGod; 
and  in  this  signification,  "  servant  of  the  Lord"  is  the  highest  name  of  honor  in 
the  old  covenant,— applied  to  Abraham,  Gen.  xxvi.  24  ;  Moses,  Num.  xii.  7, 
Josh.  i.  2-7.     niH'  nn;;.  is  different  from  i"l")"^?,  which  denotes  minister  or  at- 


182    the'  covenant  of  (jod  with  Israel  and  the  theocracy,   [g  84. 

tendant  in  gcncnil  without,  rcgurd  to  his  personal  (luality  ;  on  which  account  the 
word  r\'\p  is  most  frequently  used  of  priestly  and  Levitical  service  (5). 

(1)  Gen.  xvii.  1  :  "Walk  before  me  and  be  perfect  (Q'^^J^),  so  will  I  set  my 
covenant  between  me  and  thee." — xviii.  19  ;  comp.  §  23,  with  note  G. 

(2)  Ex.  xix.  5  :  "If  ye  hearken  to  my  voice  and  keep  my  covenant,"  etc. — 
xxiv.  3  :   "  All  the  words  wliich  Jehovah  hath  spoken  will  we  do  " 

(3)  Not  under  a  human  yoke— upright,  [erect]  nrpn'lp_are  the  Israelites  led  by 
God,  according  to  Lev.  xxvi.  13  ;  comp.  §  109. 

(4)  More  on  the  righteousness  of  faith  in  the  Old  Testament  in  the  part  on 
prophecy  (§  223). 

(5)  The  passage  1  Kings  x.  5,  concerning  Solomon's  court,  is,  I  think,  misun- 
derstood by  Roediger  in  Gesenius''  Thesaurus,  when  he  there  takes  D^nVtyp  to  be 
higher  officials.  U^rr^t'a  in  this  passage  rather  signifies  the  attendants,  and  Cl^^ 
the  higher  officials. 

§84. 

The  Law. 

The  compass  of  the  people's  obligations,  the  revelation  of  God's  commanding 
will,  is  the  law  (p'^'^P),  the  fundamental  princi'ple  of  which  is  expressed  in  the 
words,  "Be  ye  holy,  for  I  am  holy,"  Lev.  xi.  44  f.,  xix.  2  ;  or  more  completely, 
XX.  7,  "  Sanctify  yourselves  and  be  holy,  for  I  am  Jehovah  your  God." — The  im- 
press of  consecration  to  the  holy  God  is  to  be  stamped  on  the  life  of  the  Israelites 
in  ordinances  extending  to  all  important  relations  and  conditions  ;  in  every  im- 
portant affair  of  life  the  Israelite  has  to  accomplish  something  which  God  demands. 
Therefore  in  all  things  he  must  realize  to  himself  the  voice  of  the  commanding 
God.  Hence,  according  to  the  ordinances  in  Num.  xv.  38  f.,  Deut.  xxii.  12,  he 
wears  tassels  on  the  skirts  of  his  garments,  to  remind  him  every  moment  to  think 
on  all  Jehovah's  commands,  and  not  to  be  guided  by  the  imaginations  of  his  heart 
and  the  lust  of  his  eyes.  Here  there  is  no  primary  distinction  between  tlie  inner 
and  the  outer  life  ;  the  holy  calling  of  the  people  must  be  realized  in  both.  The 
traditional  division  of  the  law  of  Moses  into  mo?YfZ,  ceremonial,  d^ndi  juristic  laws 
may  serve  to  facilitate  a  general  view  of  theocratic  ordinances  ;  but  it  is  incorrect 
if  it  seeks  to  express  a  distinction  within  the  law,  and  to  claim  a  difference  of 
dignity  for  the  various  parts.  For  in  the  law,  the  most  inward  commandment, 
"Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself,"  stands  beside  "Thou  shalt  not  sow 
thy  field  with  two  kinds  of  seed,"  Lev.  xix.  18,  19.  That  Israel  must  be  holy, 
like  God,  is  the  ground  alike  of  the  command  not  to  be  defiled  by  eating  the  flesh 
of  certain  animals,  xi.  44  ff.,  and  of  the  command  to  honor  father  and  mother, 
xix.  2  f.  In  fact,  the  ceremonial  law  gives  special  expression  to  the  antagonism  of 
the  true  religion  to  heathen  nature-worship,  by  showing  that  while  m  the  latter 
the  Deity  is  drawn  down  into  nature,  in  the  former  what  is  natural  must  be  con- 
secrated and  hallowed  to  God.  The  whole  law,  in  all  its  parts,  has  the  same 
form  of  absolute,  unconditional  command.  Before  the  making  of  the  covenant, 
the  people  had  the  choice  whether  they  would  bind  themselves  by  the  law  that 
was  to  be  given  ;  but  after  they  pledge  themselves,  all  choice  is  taken  away. 
Because  of  this  strictly  objective  character  of  the  law,  human  judgment  cannot 
be  allowed  to  make  distinctions  between  the  different  precepts.      Whether  such 


§   84.]  THE   LAW.  183 

distinctions  are  to  be  made  can  be  decided  only  by  the  Lawgiver,  -who  appoints, 
it  is  true,  a  severer  punishment  for  certain  moral  abominations,  and  for  the  trans- 
gression of  such  precepts  as  stand  in  immediate  relation  to  the  covenent  idea  {e.g. 
circumcision,  the  Sabbath,  etc.)  than  for  other  transgressions.  But,  so  far  as 
man  is  concerned,  the  most  inconsiderable  precept  is  viewed  under  the  aspect  of 
the  obedience  demanded  for  the  whole  law  :  "Cursed  is  he  that  fulfils  not  the 
words  of  this  law  to  do  them,"  Deut.  xxvii.  26. 

In  these  points  lies  what  has  been  called  the  i/nfreedom  and  externality  of  the 
Mosaic  law,  a  thing  which  has  often  been  incorrectly  assumed.  For  it  is  not  true 
that  the  law  of  Moses  demands  only  external  conformity  to  the  law, — only  the 
opus  operatum,  not  a  frame  of  mind  ;  that,  in  short,  it  demands  legality,  not  mor- 
ality. On  the  contrary,  the  law  insists  on  the  disposition  of  the  heart  when  it  says, 
Ex.  XX.  17,  "Thou  shalt  not  covet"  (1)  ;  when  it  binds  men  to  love  God  with 
the  whole  heart  and  soul,  to  be  placable  toward  their  fellow-men,  and  the  like, 
Deut.  vi.  5,  Lev.  xix.  17  f.  ;  when  it  demands  the  circumcision  of  the  heart- 
that  is,  the  purification  and  devotion  of  it  to  God,  Deut.  x.  16  (cf.  also  Josh. 
xxii.  5,  xxiii.  11).  But  undoubtedly,  as  has  been  remarked,  it  demands  the 
external  as  co-ordinate  with  the  internal.  And  precisely  in  this  lies  an  important 
educating  element.  When  all  the  relations  of  life,  even  those  merely  external, 
are  placed  under  a  direct  command  of  God — when  man  in  all  he  does  or  may  not 
do  has  to  render  obedience  to  God,  he  is  thereby  led  to  the  truth  that  what  he 
ought  to  be  is  not  to  be  sought  in  rules  of  life  arbitrarily  formed  and  shaped  by 
conventionality,  but  in  an  absolutely  perfect  will,  which  conditions  and  deter- 
mines all  things.  The  revealed  law,  it  is  true,  here  undertakes  the  functions  of 
conscience;  and  it  is  characteristic  of  the  law  of  Moses,  that  for  the  present  there 
is  no  reference  made  to  the  vo/iog  ypaTrrog  kv  mpSiatg.  But  this  binding  of  the 
servant  of  God  to  an  absolute  will  standing  above  nature,  this  obligation  to  give 
up  self-will  and  natural  desires,  and  all  that  may  seem  good  or  pleasant  to  the 
individual  judgment  (3),  is,  as  Rosenkranz  (3)  rightly  says,  an  apparent  regress 
in  comparison  with  the  free  play  of  fancy  in  heathenism,  but  a  real  and  decided 
step  in  advance  toward  the  liberation  of  man.  By  bringing  man  to  a  conscious- 
ness of  the  essential  nature  of  a  higher  divine  righteousness,  the  law  roused  the 
conscience  from  its  slumber,  taught  men  to  recognize  wickedness  as  sin,  and  so 
made  the  need  of  reconciliation  with  God  to  be  felt. 

For  a  right  estimate  of  the  law  of  Moses,  the  following  points  have  further  to 
be  noticed  : — 1.  All  the  ritual  ordinances  to  which  the  Israelite  is  subject,  from 
his  circumcision  onward,  have  a  symbolic  character,  mirroring  the  inner  process  of 
sanctifi cation,  and  so  forming  the  instrument  of  a  tuition  advancing  from  the 
outer  to  the  inner  (4)  The  prophets  and  the  Psalms,  when  they  speak  of  the 
true  sacrifice,  the  true  lustration  which  man  needs,  are  simply  expressing  the 
thoughts  that  underlie  the  symbolical  ritual.  2.  The  precepts  of  the  law  are  given 
in  detail  mainly  on  the  negative  side  ;  what  the  Israelite  may  not  do  is  told  with 
great  particularity.  The  scholastic  subtlety  of  the  Rabbins,  indeed,  has  made  out 
the  considerable  number  of  248  positive  commands,  against  365  prohibitions  (5). 
But  it  is  easy  to  see  that  with  regard  to  positive  duties  the  law  often  states  only 
general  rules  ;  that,  in  fact,  many  positive  points  that  lie  in  its  intention  are  not 
expressly  enjoined,   but  that  only  the  facts,    patterns,   and  institution::;   are   set 


iS-i      THE  COVEN"ANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  85. 

forth  whi(:h  serve  to  guide  a  free  development  of  positive  virtues  (6).  It  was 
only  Jewish  tradition  which  at  a  later  period  extended  its  leading-strings  over  the 
space  which  the  law  had  left  open  for  the  free  development  of  piety.  3.  Finally, 
— and  this  is  the  main  point, — we  have  to  look  at  the  motives  for  fulfilling  the 
law  which  the  law  presents.  All  righteousness  required  by  the  law  presupposes 
faith  in  the  divine  election,  gracious  guidance,  and  jiromise.  The  legislation 
opens  with  the  words,  Ex.  xix.  4,  "Ye  have  seen  how  I  bare  you  on  eagles' 
wings,  and  brought  you  to  myself  ;"  and  so  the  Decalogue  puts  at  the  head  of  its 
demands  (xx.  2)  what  God  has  done  for  Israel.  But  it  is  Deuteronomy  in  partic- 
ular, as  we  have  already  shown  (§  31,  81),  which,  by  showing  how  God  has  loved 
His  people,  seeks  to  excite  responsive  love  as  the  deepest  motive  for  obedience, 
and  especially  to  make  the  law  acceptable  to  the  people  by  awaking  a  sense  of 
its  excellency  and  fitness,  Deut.  iv.  6-8,  xxx.  11-14  (7)  ;  though,  at  the  same  time, 
Deuteronomy  leaves  no  doubt  that  the  people  neither  can  nor  will  attain  such 
willingness  to  obey  (cf.  v.  26,  xxxi.  16  ff.,  xxxii.). 

(1)  More  concerning  Ex.  xx.  17  in  §  86. 

(2)  The  Israelite,  as  Herder  laments,  "  can  never  raise  himself  to  an  ideal  that 
demands  freer  activity  and  truer  delight  in  life." 

(8)  Die  Pddagogik  ah  System,  1848,  p.  190. 

(4)  See  also  §  95  on  the  priesthood,  §  113  and  note  2  on  the  Mosaic  worship, 
§  135  on  the  Nazirate,  etc. 

(5)  The  Rabbins  associate  these  numbers  with  the  365  days  of  the  year  and  the 
248  members  of  the  human  body,  according  to  the  physiology  of  the  time  ;  cf, 
Maimonides'  scheme  of  the  precepts,  in  J osV s  Histoi-y  of  Jtidaism,  1857,  1  Abth. 
p.  451  If. 

(6)  See  further,  e.g.,  the  sections  on  prayer,  the  Sabbath,  etc.  In  this  point 
especially  the  wise  tuition  of  the  Mosaic  law  is  seen. 

(7)  Ex.  XX.  2,  see  §  81  and  note  2.— Dent.  iv.  6-8  :  "The  law  shall  be  your 
wisdom  and  understanding  in  the  sight  of  the  nations,  which,  hearing  all  these 
statutes,  shall  say,  Surely  this  great  nation  is  a  wise  and  understanding  people  ; 
what  great  nation  is  there  that  has  statutes  and  judgments  so  righteous  as  all  this 
law,  which  I  set  before  you  this  day?"  (cf.  Ps.  c.xlvii.  19  f.)  — This  boast  has 
been  justified  by  the  spiritual  dominion  which  the  institutions  of  Israel  have  ex- 
ercised over  the  nations.— Deut.  xxx.  11-14  :  "  This  commandment  which  I  com- 
mand thee  this  day  is  not  incomprehensible  to  thee,  neither  is  it  far  off.  It  is 
not  in  heaven,  so  that  thou  must  say.  Who  shall  go  up  for  us  to  heaven  and  bring 
it  unto  lis,  that  we  may  hear  it  and  do  it?  Neither  is  it  beyond  the  sea  .  .  .  but 
the  word  is  very  nigh  unto  thee,  in  thy  mouth,  and  in  thy  heart  to  do  it." 

§85. 

77i^  Decalogue.     Its  Division. 

The  portion  of  the  covenant  which  relates  to  man's  duty,  compendiously  expressed, 
is  tlie  hook  of  the  covenant  (comp.  Ex.  xxiv.  7),  which  embraces  Ex,  xx.  1-17,  and 
(Imp.  xxi,-xxiii  ;  and  in  this,  again,  especially  the  Decalogue  (1)  which  stands 
at  the  beginning,  xx,  2-17,— the  ten  words  (as  it  is  often  called  ;  see  Ex.  xxxiv.  28, 
Dout.  iv.  13,  x.  4)  (2),  which  are  specifically  distinguished  as  spoken  by  Jehovah 
Himself,  while  the  rest  of  the  legislation  is  proclaimed  by  Moses  (3),  The  Deca- 
logue, therefore,  is  called  k.  jf.  the  covenant  wliich  God  enjoined  on  Israel.  It 
was  written  on  two  tables  of  stone,  which,  according  to  Ex,  xxxii,  15,  were  in- 


§    85.]  THE    DECALOGUE.       ITS    DIVISION".  185 

scribed  on  both  sides.  Since  in  these  ten  words  God's  witness  to  His  people  was 
concentrated,  they  were  to  be  preserved  in  the  centre  of  the  sanctuary,  in  the 
ark  (4). 

The  number  ten  characterizes  the  commandments  as  a  complete  whole,  and  sim- 
ilar series  of  ten  are  found  more  than  once  in  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch 
(5). — The  Decalogue  is  again  given  in  Deut.  v.  6  Jf.  The  two  editions  are  dis- 
tinguished— not  to  speak  of  less  important  variations  {i))—Jirst,  by  different  rea- 
sons being  annexed  to  the  Sabbath-law  (in  Exodus  the  Sabbath  of  creation  is  as- 
signed, while  in  Deuteronomy,  agreeably  to  the  predominantly  subjective  ground 
of  the  law  in  this  book,  Egyptian  slavery  and  the  deliverance  therefrom  are  allud- 
ed to)  ;  secondly,  by  the  addition  in  Deuteronomy,  in  the  command  against  covet- 
ing, putting  the  loife  instead  of  the  house  first  and  apart,  and  emphasizing  this 
separation  by  a  change  of  verb  (7). 

On  the  division  of  the  Decalogue  there  have  long  been  various  views.  The  7nain 
schemes  of  division  are  three,  distinguished  by  the  way  in  which  they  take  the  first 
and  last  commandment.  The  first  scheme  became  prevalent  in  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic Church  under  the  influence  of  Augustine,  and  has  been  retained  by  the  Luther- 
ans, and  in  recent  times  has  been  defended  by  Otto,  Kurtz,  and  others.  It  in- 
cludes in  the  first  commandment  Ex.  xx.  2-6,  Deut.  v.  G-10  (8).  The  ninth  com- 
mandment is  generally  taken  according  to  the  text  of  Exodus,  "Thou  shalt  not 
covet  thy  neighbour's  house  f  the  tenth,  "  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbour's 
wife,''''  etc.  Augustine  himself,  on  the  contrary,  in  the  main  passage  in  which  he 
treats  of  this  subject  {Quo'st.  in  Exod.  71),  holds  to  the  text  of  Deuteronomy  for 
the  ninth  and  tenth  commandments.  He  is  followed  among  the  moderns  by 
Sonntag  and  Kurtz,  who  emend  the  text  of  Exodus  by  the  aid  of  Deuteronomy. 
Thus  the  ninth  commandment  would  refer  to  the  coveting  of  the  conjugal  rights  ; 
the  tenth,  to  the  coveting  of  the  possessions  of  a  neighbour. — ThQseco7id  and  third 
schemes  of  division  agree  in  making  the  whole  prohibition  of  concupiscence  a 
single  commandment  (the  tenth),  but  they  differ  as  to  the  first  and  second  com- 
mandment. According  to  the  view  now  common  among  the  Jews, — which,  how- 
ever, seems  to  rest  on  no  very  ancient  tradition, — the  first  of  the  ten  words  com- 
prises only  Ex.  xx.  2  :  "I  am  the  Lord  thy  God,  who  hath  brought  thee  out," 
etc.  This,  they  say,  implies  the  obligation  to  believe  on  God  as  the  most  perfect 
being.  The  second  commandment  (vers.  3-6)  then  includes  the  obligation  to  be- 
lieve on  God's  unity  and  the  i^rohibition  of  false  worship  (9).  The  third  scheme, 
accepted  by  the  Greek  and  Reformed  Churches,  and  by  the  Socinians,  makes  ver. 

3  the  first  commandment  :   "  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  beside  me  ;"  and  ver. 

4  the  second  :  "Thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thee  any  graven  image,"  etc. 

The  third  of  these  divisions  has  in  its  favor  the  oldest  historical  testimonies, 
being  found  not  only  in  Josephus  {Ant.  iii.  5.  5),  but  also  in  Philo  (Quis  remm  div. 
hares  sit,  §  35,  ed.  Mang.  i.  p.  496,  and  De  Decal.  §  12,  Mang.  ii.  p.  188).  Of  the 
Fathers,  Origen  takes  the  same  view  (10).  He  seems  to  have  been  also  acquaint- 
ed with  the  view  which  included  vers.  2-6  in  the  first  commandment,  but  not 
with  the  division  of  the  prohibition  of  concupiscence  into  two  (11)  ;  and,  in  fact, 
Augustine's  view,  that  vers.  2-6  are  a  single  commandment,  must  also  rest  on 
ancient  Jewish  tradition.  The  Hebrew  accentuation  of  the  Decalogue  is  twofold, 
V— tlie  one  accentuation  giving  the  usual  Mascretic  division  into  verses,  the  other 


180      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  85. 

regulating  the  intoiiiition  in  the  synagogue.  The  latter  takes  vers.  2-6  together, 
showing  that  these  live  verses  were  viewed  as  closely  connected.  It  is  even  more 
important  that  the  Romish  and  Lutheran  division  is  that  on  which  the  division  of 
the  Decalogue  into  parashm  is  based  (12)  ;  the  setlnima,  that  divides  the  pro- 
hibition of  concupiscence,  is  indeed  lacking  in  the  oldest  manuscripts  (13),  but  it 
is  certain  that  vers.  2-6  formed  only  one  parasha.  The  small  parasJias  are  so 
old  that  this  cannot  be  due  to  Christian  influence.— Since,  then,  the  union  of 
vers,  3  and  4  as  a  single  precept  must  be  very  old,  our  decision  between  the  various 
divisions  must  proceed  on  internal  grounds. — Now,  first,  it  is  decidedly  against 
the  Jewish  view  that  ver.  2  is  the  first  of  the  ten  words,  that  the  second  verse  has 
not  in  the  least  the  form  of  a  precept.  The  view  which  has  sometimes  been  taken 
(see  note  9) ,  that  this  verse  forms  the  first  of  the  ten  words  as  the  covenant  prom- 
ise, is  also  improbable  ;  and  if  vers.  2  and  3  are  separated,  we  lose  the  close  con- 
nection which  obviously  subsists  between  them.  The  words  in  ver.  2  have  a 
double  import.  They  apply,  in  the  first  place,  to  the  whole  Decalogue  (comp. 
the  opening  formula,  Lev.  xviii.  2,  xix.  2)  ;  thus  they  contain  the  general  presup- 
position of  the  law,  the  ground  of  obligation  for  Israel,  which  lies  in  the  nature 
of  his  God  and  the  fact  of  his  redemption.  But,  in  the  second  place,  they  are 
the  special  ground  of  the  command  not  to  worship  other  gods  besides  Jehovah 
(14). — Further,  as  to  vers.  3-6,  the  circumstance  that  these  verses  are  at  least 
closely  connected  seems  favorable  to  the  view  that  they  form  a  single  command- 
ment, according  to  the  Augustinian  view,  viz.,  the  prohibition  of  idolatry;  for 
the  threat  and  promise  of  ver.  5  f.  clearly  refer  to  ver.  3  as  well  as  to  ver.  4.  But 
if  vers.  3-6  are  taken  as  one  commandment,  the  number  ten  can  be  reached  only 
by  dividing  the  prohibition  of  concupiscence  in  ver.  17  into  two  commandments  ; 
and  since  this  division  cannot  be  sufficiently  justified,  it  remains  more  probable 
that  vers.  3-6  are  to  be  divided.  They  contain,  in  fact,  two  essentially  distinct 
points.  The  command  in  ver.  3  to  worship  Jehovah  alone  does  not  preclude  His 
being  worshipped  by  an  image.  This  is  forbidden  in  ver.  4,  which  does  not 
simply  (15)  add  to  ver.  3  the  statement  that  the  other  gods,  whose  worship  is  for- 
bidden in  ver.  3,  include  idols,  but  especially  forbids  an  image  to  be  made  (16) 
(comp.  Deut.  iv.  15).— Only  on  the  Deuteronomic  edition  can  a  division  of  the 
prohibition  of  concupiscence  be  justified  (for  in  it  we  might  distinguish  cupiditas 
impurm  voluptatis  from  cupiditas  inordinati  lueri).  But  the  text  of  Exodus  is  cer- 
tainly to  be  taken  as  primary,  and  it  offers  no  essential  difference  in  the  concu- 
piscence forbidden  in  the  two  sentences  (17).  Accordingly,  Mark  x.  19,  Rom.  xiii. 
9  treat  this  as  a  single  command  ;  and  even  Luther  in  his  catechism  found  it  ad- 
visable to  unite  the  ninth  and  tenth  commandments  in  his  explanation  of  them 
(18). 

(1)  In  the  Greek  Fathers  generally,  r)  (hmAoyng  sc.  y^//3Aof,  or  vofioOeaia  (see 
Suiceri  Thesaurus  Ecclesiasticus,  s.v.).  In  Latin  idiom,  on  the  contrary,  deca- 
logus  sc.  liber. 

(2)  LXX  :  ol  SeKa  'Aoyoi,  ra  fikaa  pr/fiara. 

(3)  On  this  see  Philo,  I)e  Decnl  §  5,  ed.  Mang.  ii.  p.  183. 

(4)  Of  the  very  coi)ious  literature  on  the  Decalogue  the  following  notice  may 
.<!uflBce  : — The  recent  discussions  on  the  Decalogue,  and  especially  its  division,  were 
opened  by  several  essays  in  Ullmann  and  Umbreit's  Stndien  by  Sonntag,  1836. 
No,    1,    1837,   No.  2  ;  by  Ziillig,  ihid.  No.  1.     Then  appeared  a'lengthv  and  still 


§    85.]  THE    DECALOGUE.       ITS    DIVISION.  187 

valuable  essay  by  Geffcken,  Ueher  die  verschiedene  Eintheilung  des  DeTcalogris  iind 
den  Elnfluss  derselhen  anf  den  KuUus,  Hamb.  1838.  Compare  also  my  article 
"  Dekalog"  in  Herzog's  B.E.  iii.  p.  319  fE.  But  since  that  time  a  more  extensive 
literature  has  arisen,  from  which  I  mention  :  Kurtz's  full  discussion  of  the  matter 
inhis  History  of  the  Old  Covenant,  iii.p.  121  flE.,  and  his  essay  "  Ueber  den  Dekalog," 
in  Kiiefoth  and  Meyer's  Kirchl.  Zeituchri/t,  1858  ;  the  paper  by  E.  W.  Otto, 
Dehnlogische  Untersuchungen,  1857  ;  an  essay  by  Fr.  W.  Schultz  in  Breslau,  "  Das 
Recht  der  lutherischen  Dekalog-Eintlieilung, "  in  Rudelbacli's  and  Guerike's 
Zeitschr.  1858  ;  an  anonymous  essay,  "Die  Eintheilung  des  Dekalogs,"  in  the 
Eiianger  Zeitschr.  fdr  Protest,  und  Kirclie,  1858.  Finally,  special  notice  is  due  to 
the  treatment  of  the  point  by  Zezschwitz,  Katechetik,  ii.  1,  p.  233  ff.  [The  work 
of  Lemme,  Die  religionsgcschicMUche  Bedeutung  des  Dekalogs,  contradicts  in  nearly 
all  points  the  view  here  presented,  but  deserves  to  be  consulted,  and  in  many 
respects  is  stimulating.] 

(5)  The  number  ten  had  probably  also  the  practical  aim  of  making  the  com- 
mandments easy  to  remember  by  counting  them  on  the  fingers. — Bertheau's  view 
of  seven  groups,  each  of  7  X  10  commandments  (in  his  very  interesting  and  in- 
structive book.  The  Seven  Groups  of  the  Mosaic  Latos,  1840),  must  be  considerably 
limited  ;  comp.  Ewald,  Hist,  of  Israel,  ii.  p.  168  ff. 

(6)  See  the  exactest  statement  of  these,  and  of  the  variations  of  the  Samaritan 
text,  in  V.  T.  ed.  Kennicott,  i.  p.  149. 

(7)  The  LXX  put  the  wife  first  in  Exodus  also,  but  the  other  ancient  authorities, 
including  the  Samaritan  Pent.,  favor  the  Masoretic  text. — Ex.  xx.  17  :  "  Thou  shalt 
not  covet  thy  neighbor's  house.  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's  wife." — • 
Deut.  V.  18  :  "  Thou  shalt  not  desire  (lonj^)  thy  neighbor's  wife,  and  thou  shalt 
not  covet  (H.^xriJI)  thy  neighbor's  house,  field,"  etc. 

(8)  Thus,  on  this  division,  the  first  commandment  runs  in  full  thus  :  "I 
Jehovah  am  thy  God,  who  have  brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  out 
of  the  house  of  bondage.  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  me.  Thou  slialt 
not  make  unto  thee  anj'  graven  image,  or  any  likeness  of  any  thing  that  is  in 
heaven  above,  or  that  is  in  the  earth  beneath,  or  that  is  in  the  water  under  the 
earth  :  Thou  shalt  not  l.>ow  down  thyself  to  them,  nor  serve  them  :  for  I  the 
Lord  thy  God  am  a  jealous  God,  visiting  the  iniquity  of  the  fatliers  upon  the 
children  unto  the  third  and  fourth  generation  of  them  that  hate  me  ;  and  show- 
ing mercy  unto  thousands  of  them  that  love  me,  and  keej)  my  commandments." 

(9)  This  division  recurs  with  a  peculiar  modification  in  the  above-mentioned 
essay  in  the  Erlanger  Zeitschrift.  Tliis  essay  makes  ver.  2  the  first  of  the  ten 
words,  though  not  as  a  precept,  but  as  the  covenant  promise  and  display  of  God's 
being  in  its  fulness  of  blessing  and  clearness.  [So  also  Kohler,  i.  p.  268,  He  re- 
gards the  division  of  Ex.  xx.  3-6  into  a  prohibition  of  polytheism  and  a  prohibition 
of  image-worship,  as  logically  possible,  but  practically  worthless  ;  it  conflicts 
with  the  Old  Testament  representation  of  the  worship  of  idols  and  images  as 
reverence  for  something  else  than  Jehovah.] 

(10)  Origen,  Homil.  in  Exod.  viii.,  ed.  Lommatzsch,  p.  91.  Hence  this  division 
is  also  called  the  Origenistic. 

(11)  Against  the  union  of  the  first  two  commandments,  as  he  counts  them,  he 
objects,  "  Quodsi  ita  putetur,  non  complebitur  decern  numerus  mandatorum.  Et 
ubi  jam  erit  decalogi  Veritas  ?" — The  uncertainty  then  prevalent  as  to  the  division 
of  the  first  and  second  commandments  is  testified  by  the  remarkable  treatment  of 
the  Decalogue  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Strom,  vi.  16, — a  passage  certainly  not  to 
be  adduced  in  favor  of  the  Romish  or  Lutheran  division,  but  not  sufficiently  freed 
from  obscurity  by  the  remarks  of  Geffcken,  p.  159  ff. — The  first  trace  of  the  view 
of  the  first  two  commandments  accepted  in  the  Jewish  division  is  found  in  the 
Babylonian  Gemara  of  the  Tract.  Mahkoth,  24  a  ;  perhaps  Origen,  too.  I.e.  p.  90, 
refers  to  the  same. 

(12)  Vers.  2-6  form  a  small  parasha,  then  ver.  7  follows  as  an  open  parasha  ; 
then,  again,  vers.  8-11  are  taken  together  as  one,  then  ver.  12,  and  so  forth. 

(13)  In  general,  the  position  of  Vae  parasha  at  that  point  remained  a  matter  of 


188      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.     [§  8G. 

discussion  among  the  Jews  ;    cf.  Keimicott,  Bias,  generalis  in  V.  T.,  ed.  Bruns, 
p.  59. 

(14)  Because  the  redemption  of  Israel  from  Egypt  reveals  Jehovah's  faithful- 
ness and  His  might  over  heathen  gods,  Israel  is  to  have  no  other  gods  beside 
Him. 

(15)  As  Lutherans  have  often  said  ;  cf.  e.g.  Gerhard,  Loci,  ed.  Cotta,  v.  p.  244  ; 
"  Primum  pncceptum  dens  alienos  in  genere  prohibet,  pra^ceptum  de  sculptilibus 
certam  speciem  deoruni  alieuorum  exprimit." 

(16)  When,  for  exampk',  King  Jeroboam  I.  set  up  his  separatist  worship,  he 
did  not  break  the  first  commandment,  ver.  3,  for  the  bovine  image  which  he 
erected  at  Bethel  was  meant  to  represent  Jehovah  ;  but  he  broke  the  second  com- 
mandment, ver.  4,  by  worshipping  Jehovah  by  an  image,  comp.  §  172.  [In  favor 
of  the  separation  of  ver.  3  and  4  and  the  division  of  Philo,  Dillmann  also  decides 
in  his  Commentary  on  Exodus.] 

(17)  The  meaning  of  the  text  in  Exodus  is,  that  the  house  precedes,  as  the  gen- 
eral word  including  all  possessions,  and  then  the  individual  good  things  in  the 
house  follow.  Deuteronomy,  on  the  contrary,  has  in  view  the  peculiar  and  hon- 
orable ])Osition  of  the  wife. 

(18)  The  assertion  of  the  Lutheran  theologians,  that  the  ninth  commandment 
forbids  concupiscentin  aetualis,  the  tenth  concupisc.  originalis  (cf.  Gerhard,  I.e.  p. 
247),  is  a  mere  invention  of  polemical  zeal. — The  differences  in  the  other  com- 
mandments are  only  in  regard  to  order.  The  order  of  the  Masoretic  text  is  sup- 
ported by  the  LXX  text  of  Deut.  v.,  Josephus,  I.e.  and  Matt.  xix.  18.  But  the 
LXX  text  of  Ex.  xx.  differs  in  placing  adultery  first,  then  theft,  then  murder 
(oh  /noixsvaeic,  oh  «/lfi/;e«f,  ov  cpovsvGEcg  : — the  variation  is  probably  due  to  a  natural 
association  of  ideas,  which  suggests  that  the  otlier  commandment  regarding  fam- 
ily life  should  follow  the  fifth  commandment  concerning  the  relation  of  parents  and 
children,  and  that  the  ju-ohibition  of  theft  should  go  along  with  that  of  murder). 
Different,  again,  is  the  order  in  Philo  (in  both  passages  cited),  and  in  the  New 
Testament  in  Rom.  xiii.  9,  cf.  Jas.  ii.  11,  Luke  xviii.  20,  Mark  x.  19  (where  the 
reading  varies),  and  finally  in  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  vi.  16,- — all  these  placing  adul- 
tery first,  and  then  murder  and  theft.  (On  the  order  in  Matt.  xix.  19  and  the 
parallel  passages  where  honor  to  pai'ents  stands  after  the  others,  see  Stier,  ad 
loc,  and  Lechler,  "  Das  A.T.  in  den  Reden  Jesu,"  Stud,  und  Krit.  1854,  p.  801.) 
These  differences  prove  nothing  more  than  that  there  was  considerable  freedom 
used  in  Jewish  and  Christian  antiquity  in  numbering  the  commandments. 

§86. 
Continuation  of  the  Decalogue. 

'  The  Old  Testament  does  not  expressly  tell  us  how  the  commandments  were 
divided  between  the  two  tables.  If  the  third  of  the  division  given  above  is  correct 
(Philo,  Origen,  the  Reformed  and  the  Greek  church),  it  is  most  likely  that  five 
precepts  are  to  be  assigned  to  each  table,  as  is  assumed  by  Philo  (I.e.)  and  Josephus 
(Ant.  iii.  Q.Jin.)  (1).  The  first  five  precepts  are  distinguished  from  those  that 
follow  by  the  reasons  annexed  to  each,  and  by  the  appearance  of  the  words 
*'  Jehovah  thy  God  "  once  in  each  commandment,  including  the  first  if  vers.  2  and 
3  are  taken  together.  The  chief  oljjcctiou  to  this  division  is,  that  it  gives  so 
much  more  writing  on  the  first  table  than  on  the  second — eleven  verses  on  the  one, 
only  two  on  the  other  ;  but  this  point  is  not  decisive.  The  material  difference 
between  the  two  tables  is,  as  it  has  been  briefly  put,  that  the  first  contains  prcB- 
cepta  pietatis,  the  second  prcecepta  2>robitatis.  That  the  command  to  honor  parents 
is  put  among  the  precepts  of  piety  is  justified  by  the  way  in  which  elsewhere  the 
law  connects  earthly  relations  of  piety  with  piety  towi^rd  God  ;  e.g..  Lev.  xix.  32, 


§    86.]  THE    DECALOGUE,       ITS    ARRANGEMENT.  189 

Ex.  xxii.  27  (2). — Another  view,  which  is  that  of  Calvin  (Inst.  ii.  8.  12),  followed 
by  the  Reformed  Church,  puts  four  precepts  on  the  first  table,  and  six,  commenc- 
ing with  the  command  to  honor  parents,  upon  the  second  (3).  The  followers  of 
the  Augustiniau  division  generally  agree  in  beginning  the  second  table  with  the  last- 
mentioned  precept,  assigning  three  commandments  to  the  first  table  and  seve7i  to 
the  second  (4).  On  this  view  the  number  three  has  been  associated  with  the 
Trinity,  and  it  is  urged  that  seven  in  the  second  table  is  a  holy  number  (5). 

The  division  of  the  Decalogue,  on  the  Philonic  arrangement,  which  we  ac- 
cept, is  the  following  : — In  the  first  table,  the  Jirst  commandment  expresses  the 
principle  of  monotheism,  and  forbids  a  plurality  of  gods.  The  second,  in  forbidding 
the  use  of  any  image  in  the  worship  of  the  Deity,  abolishes  the  deification  of  nature 
in  any  sense  (6).  The  Third  ("  Thou  shalt  not  take  up,  apply,  the  name  of 
Jehovah  thy  Cod  to  vanity")  demands  reverence  to  God  in  life  and  walk  as  a 
whole,  by  forbidding  the  most  obvious  and  frequent  breach  of  this  duty,  the  pro- 
fanation of  God's  name  by  false  swearing  (cf.  Lev.  xix.  12)  or  other  misuse.  The 
fourth  commandment  lays  the  basis  of  the  ordinances  of  worship,  by  appointing 
the  Sabbath.  The  JiftJi,  the  command  to  honor  parents,  lays  the  foundation  of 
all  social  ordinances  of  life.  The  second  table,  which  defines  duties  to  neigh- 
bors, is  obviously  based  on  the  common  Old  Testament  trilogy  of  hand,  mouth, 
heart  (cf.  e.g.  Ps.  xxiv.  4)  (7).  It  first  attacks  sins  in  deed,^ — injuries  to  the  life, 
wedded  state,  or  property  of  a  neighbor  ;  and  then  sins  in  word, — injury  to  a 
neighbor's  good  name  by  false  testimony  or  lies.  Finally,  since  the  last  command- 
ment forbids  even  to  covet  what  belongs  to  another,  it  is  made  clear  that  the 
obedience  demanded  is  that  of  the  heart,  and  it  is  indicated  that  the  fulfilling  of 
the  law  is  not  complete  except  in  the  sanctification  of  the  inner  man.  No  doubt 
this  exposition  of  the  tenth  commandment  is  disputed.  Even  Luther  gives  its 
sense  as  being,  "  that  no  man  shall  think  or  propose  to  take  to  himself  what  is 
another  man's,  even  with  a  fair  pretext,  if  his  neighbor  is  injured  thereby"  {Larger 
Cat.  ed.  Rechenb.  p.  476).  In  accordance  with  this,  Geffcken  and  others,  also 
Schultz  (8),  have  made  the  precept  to  refer  to  deceitful  undertakings.  The  Deca- 
logue, they  think,  literally  interpreted,  looks  only  at  the  outer  fulfilling  of  the  law  ; 
the  reference  of  the  commandment  to  its  inner  principle  is  left  to  the  plei-osis  of 
the  law  (cf.  Matt.  v.  21  ff.).  It  may  be  admitted  that  the  commandment  does  not 
mean  to  draw  a  sharp  line  between  inner  lust  and  the  appearing  of  that  lust  in  at- 
tempts to  gratify  it  (in  Mark  x.  19  the  commandment  is  represented  by  ///)  (ntoaTE- 
pTjoriq).  But  though  Schultz  appeals  to  Ex.  xxxiv.  24,  Mic.  ii.  2,  to  show  that  ^f?^ 
refers  to  attempts  to  touch  another  man's  property,  it  is  undeniable,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  the  commandment  is  alluded  to  in  Prov.  vi.  25,  '"l^?/^  "lbnri~75<  ;  and 
the  nixnn  X?,  which  Deuteronomy  puts  in  the  second  clause,  can,  in  accordance 
with  the  constant  use  of  the  word  (9),  refer  to  nothing  but  the  desire  that  leads 
to  action.  (The  LXX  give  throughout  ovk  e-idv/i7/aEig,  which  in  Rom.  vii.  7  is 
likewise  applied  to  concupiscence.)  A  comment  on  the  commandment  is  to  be 
found  in  Job  xxxi.  1-4. 

The  definitive  and  rounded  character  of  the  Decalogue,  as  we  have  it,  is  a 
decisive  proof  that  it  retains  its  original  form.  Recent  attempts  to  mutilate  it  and 
strip  it  of  its  simplicity  (e.g.  Meier,  Die  urspriingliche  Form  des  Dekalogs,  Mann- 
Ixeim,  1846)  rest  on  the  most  arbitrary  hypotheses  (10). 


190      THE  COVEXAXT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISKAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRA(JY.    [§  86. 

(1)  Cf.  also  Irenajus,  ii.  42. 

(2)  If  in  Lev.  xix.  82,  "  Thou  shalt  rise  up  before  the  hoary  head,  and  honor 
the  face  of  the  old  man,  and  fear  thy  God  ;"  Ex.  xxii.  27,  "Thou  shalt  not  curse 
God,  nor  revile  the  ruler  of  thy  people,"— reverence  to  princes  and  to  the  aged  is 
deduced  from  the  honor  due  to  God  (this  is  the  sense  of  the  connection,  cf.  Prov. 
xxiv.  21),  the  same  thing  must  be  still  more  true  of  honor  to  parents,  since  all 
authority  of  superiors  is  originally  derived  from  that  of  the  father.  Similarly,  in 
Lev.  xix.  3,  the  command  to  honor  parents  stands  with  religious  precepts  in  the 
narrower  sense, — the  Sal)bath  law  and  prohibition  of  false  worship.  The  reason 
for  tliis  is  rightly  given  by  Lutlier  (in  his  Expositio/i  of  the  Becal.,  1518)  :  "  Idee 
istud  prajceptum  post  praecepta  prim*  tabulae  pnnitur,  quia  est  de  illis,  qui  sunt 
vicarii  Dei.  Quaresicut  Deus  colendus  est  honore,  ita  et  vicarius  ejus."  At  the 
same  time,  this  precept  makes  a  fit  transition  to  the  second  table  (such,  on 
the  whole,  is  the  view  of  Philo,  Lc). 

(3)  Because  to  join  the  precept  concerning  parents  to  the  first  table  is  to  con- 
found religion  Is  et  caritatis  distinctionem,  and  at  the  same  time  with  reference  to 
Matt.  xix.  19.  The  passage  Eph.  vi.  2  has  often  been  regarded  as  an  evidence 
that  the  second  table  began  with  the  command  to  honor  parents  ;  and  so,  e.g.,  the 
Ambrosiaster  on  the  passage  (Appendix  to  Ambrosii  Opera,  Paris  ed.  p.  248  f.), 
assuming  the  Philonic  division,  gives  four  commandments  to  the  first  table,  and 
six  to  the  second.  The  common  answer  to  this  view  is,  that  this  commandment, 
even  if  it  stood  on  the  first  table,  may  be  called  the  first  in  the  Decalogue  to  which 
a  promise  is  annexed, — the  promise  in  ver.  6  being  not  only  united  to  a  threat, 
but  possessing  a  more  general  character,  and  not  standing  in  any  specific  relation 
to  the  preceding  precept.  But  the  true  exegesis  of  Eph.  vi.  2  is  :  which  is  a 
prime,  i.e.  a  main  precept  in  a  promise,  i.e.  because  united  with  a  promise  (see 
Winer,  ad  I.).  On  this  view,  the  passage  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  place  of 
the  commandment  in  the  Decalogue. 

(4)  See  Augustine,  I.e.;  Catechism.  Rom.  iii.  chap.  5  ;  Luther,  Kurze  Form  der  zehn 
Oebote,  in  the  Erlang.  ed.  of  his  German  works,  xxii.  p.  5  ;  and  Or.  Katechism.  ed. 
Rechenb.  p.  429. 

(5)  Were  it  not  that  the  whole  division  here  presupposed  is,  as  we  have  seen, 
false,  this  view  would  have  in  its  favor  that  it  makes  the  writing  on  each  table 
nearly  equal  in  amount. 

(6)  It  is  not  to  be  viewed  as  a  prohibition  of  all  plastic  art,  as  it  was  taken  by 
Philo,  — "Quis  rerum  div.  haer.  sit,"  ed.  Mang.  p.  496,— and  by  some  excessive 
purists  in  the  Reformed  Churches  (compare  Gefiicken,  I.e.  p.  32  ff.  ;  Ze'.ler,  Das 
theolog.  System  ZtcinglVs,  p.  107  ff.).  [According  to  Lemme,  p.  40  ff.,  the  second 
word  does  not  forbid  the  making  an  image  of  God,  but  only  the  paying  of 
religious  regard  to  things  of  which  an  image  may  be  made.  "  Hence  the  worship 
of  Jahve  in  the  form  of  an  ox  could  exist,  where  the  second  word  of  the 
Decalogue  was  admitted  and  observed."  He  finds  a  striking  confirmation  of  his 
view  in  Deut.  iv.  15  ff.,  which  he  understands  as  containing  the  thought,  "  take 
heed,  since  I,  Jehovah,  the  only  true  God,  am  an  invisible  and  supersensible  being, 
that  you  make  and  adore  no  visible  and  corporeal  idols."  But  if  this  were  the 
meaning  of  the  passage,  it  would  be  illogical.  A  logically  correct  relation  between 
the  premise  and  the  conclusion  would  be,  "  Since  I,  Jehovah,  the  invisible  and  su- 
persensible Being,  am  the  only  true  God."  But  since  not  to  derive  this  premise 
from  V.15  is  to  read  nothing  of  the  only  true  God  in  the  passage,  the  explanation 
of  Keil  holds  its  own  :  "Ye  have  seen  no  form  of  me,  therefore  take  heed  of  making 
symbolical  representations  of  me. "J 

(7)  So  Thomas  Aquinas,  Savonarola  (see  Rudelbach,  Savonarola  and  His  Time, 
p.  406),  Hengstenberg,  Genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch,  ii.  p.  492  f. 

(8)  See  Geffcken,  pp.  141  ff.  and  255  ff.  ;  Schultz,  Alttest.  Theol.,  p.  322  ;  and 
the  above-cited  article  in  the  Erlanger  Zeitschrift :  "  The  impulse,  asserting  itself 
by  all  possible  elforts,  to  do  injury  to  our  neighbor's  property." 

(9)  The  verb  HJX  is  always,  and  the  noun  HJN  almost  always,  connected  with 


§    87.]  CIRCUMCISION.       ITS    HISTORICAL   ORIGIN".  191 

(10)  [The  critical  assaults  upon  the  Pentateuch  have  increased  within  the  last 
few  years.  Against  the  objection  of  Reuss  (Geseh.  d.  heil.  Schriften  des  A.  Test., 
§  77),  that  in  order  to  be  able  to  write  the  Decalogue  as  we  have  it  in  Ex.  xx.,  upon 
stone,  tablets  of  enormous  size  would  have  been  necessary,  comp.  what  Delitzsch, 
' '  The  Decalogue  in  Exodus  and  Deuteronomy, ' '  in  Luthardt's  Zeitschriftfiir  Eirchl. 
Wissenschiift,  18S3,  No. 6,  has  shown  in  regard  to  the  size  of  stones  with  inscriptions 
which  have  been  discovered.  If  we  felt  obliged  with  some  {e.g.  Reuss  and 
Wellhausen,  p.  404  flf.),  to  regard  the  series  of  enactments  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  11  ff.  as  a  re- 
cension of  the  D^^calogue,  we  should  have  indeed  a  very  different  recension  from 
Ex. XXX.,  Deut.v.,  but  we  could  scarcely  doubt  i  hat  the  recension  in  Exodus  deserves 
the  preference.  Comp.  Lemme,  p.  5  f.,  Dillmann  in  his  commentary  on  the  passage, 
and  generally  for  the  genuineness  of  the  Decalogue  the  article  of  Delitzsch  already 
referred  to.  If  Wellhausen  were  correct  in  his  view  of  Ex.  xxxiv.  11  If.,  it  would 
yet  be  well  worth  considering  that  the  two  accounts  in  Exodus  and  the  one  in 
Deuteronomy  agree  in  stating  that.  (1)  the  Decalogue  is  Mosaic,  and  (2)  that  it  was 
written  upon  tables  of  stone.  Wellhausen  therefore  has  the  least  possible  ground 
for  denying  the  writing  upon  tables  of  stone.  But  still  more  significant  is  the 
fact  that  the  text  of  Ex.  xxxiv.,  which  varies  so  much  from  the  two  other  recen- 
sions and  contains  quite  a  number  of  other  commandments,  has,  like  those,  the  j^ro- 
hibition  of  images  (comp.  v.  17).  What  right  have  we  then  to  claim  as  non-Mosaic 
the  very  prohibition  in  which  the  diverging  recensions  agree,  not  indeed  in  words, 
but  in  the  thing  itself  ?  (Comp.  what  Delitzsch  in  the  essay  referred  to  communi- 
cates from  Wellhausen's  article  in  the  Encydopmlia  Britannica).  But  with  the  fact 
established  that  Moses  prohibited  images,  an  im()ortant  assumption  of  the  Well- 
hausen construction  of  history  falls.  Under  the  influence  of  the  more  recent  critical 
current  in  respect  to  the  Decalogue,  and  especially  the  prohibition  of  images. 
Schultz  has  become  more  sceptical  than  before  (2d  ed.,  p.  316  f.).  But  if  this 
commandment  was  not  originally  made,  what  commandment  stood  in  its  place, 
"  since  they  were  certainly  designed  to  be  ten  in  number"  ?  Comp.  on  tlie  impor- 
tance of  the  testimony  given  by  the  Decalogue  against  the  modern  talk  of  the 
worship  of  Jehovah  under  an  image  as  permitted  by  Moses,  Bredenkamp,  p.  51  ff.] 

§  87. 
Circumcision  (1).     Its  Historical  Origin. 

All  theocratic  ordinances  (cf.  §  80,  note  2)  are  in  general  signs  and  pledges  of 
the  covenant  relation,  and  in  this  respect  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  is  especially 
emphasized,  Ex.  xxxi.  13,  16  f.  But  the  main  sign  of  the  covenant  (^"!|  ^^^,  Gen. 
xvii.  11  ;  DZ)"ityD3  n'13,  ver.  13)  is  circumcision,  which  is  the  constant  symbol  of 
covenant  obligations,  and  of  consequent  covenant  rights.  It  was  prescribed  not 
only  for  Israelites  by  birth,  but  also  (as  already  remarked,  §  82,  3)  for  all  who 
were  received,  into  the  house  as  slaves,  Gen.  xvii.  12-27  comp.  with  Ex.  xii.  44- 
48.  On  new-born  boys  it  was  performed  on  the  eighth  day  (Gen.  xvii.  12  ;  Lev. 
xii.  3),  that  is,  at  the  end  of  the  period  in  which,  according  to  xii.  2,  the  mother 
of  the  child,  and  therefore  probably  also  the  child  she  was  suckling,  was  consid- 
ered as  unclean  ;  so  also,  according  to  Ex.  xxii.  29,  Lev.  xxii.  27,  animals  could 
not  be  offered  till  eight  days  old  (cf.  §  123,  2). 

The  historical  origin  and  the  religious  import  of  circumcision  must  be  carefully 
distinguished.  It  is  quite  possible  that  the  rite  was  customary  in  other  tribes  be- 
fore it  was  introduced  in  the  race  of  Abraham  ;  and,  in  fact,  the  statement  in 
Gen.  xvii.  presupposes  a  previous  acquaintance  with  it.  But  this  does  not  justify 
the  inference  that  the  significance  of  circumcision  in  the  Old  Testament  must  be 
explained  from  heathenism  (2).     Moreover,  the  historical  origin  of  the  lite  among 


192      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISBAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.     [§  87. 

heathen  nations  lies  in  the  greatest  obscurity.  It  is  not  probable  that  the  usage 
spread  from  a  single  centre  ;  Diodorus  (according  to  an  observation  in  BlhUoth. 
iii.  32j  found  it  even  among  the  Troglodytes,  and  in  recent  times  it  has  been  found 
in  the  South  Sea  Islands  and  among  heathen  negroes.  It  may  be  taken  as  certain 
that  it  was  a  custom  of  immemorial  antiquity  among  some  nations  of  Western  Asia 
and  Africa,  but  not,  as  far  as  appears,  among  Japhetic  races. 

[Whether  from  Jer.  ix.  24  f.  we  may  infer  that  the  Egyptians,  Edomites,  Ammon- 
ites, and  Moabites  practised  circumcision  (so  e.g.  Orelli)  is  doubtful.  The  24th 
verse  (A.V.  25th)  indeed  is  unquestionably  to  be  translated  :  "I  visit  all  them  who 
are  circumcised  in  the  foreskin"  i.e.,  all  who,  although  circumcised,  are  in  fact 
uncircumcised  in  heart  (so  Ewald),  "Egypt,  and  Judah,  and  Edom,  and  the 
children  of  Ammon,  and  all  who  are  shorn  in  the  corners  [of  their  hair],  who 
dwell  in  the  wilderness."  But  since  at  the  close  of  v.  25,  the  heathen  as  D'7"};?, 
[uncircumcised]  are  contrasted  with  the  Israelites  as  ^"irj.iy.  [uncircumcised 
in  heart],  it  is  manifest  that  in  v.  24  Sl*3  must  be  taken  in  a  wider  significa- 
tion, so  as  to  include  other  customs,  also  such  as  are  indicated  by  HND  'i'l^p. 
The  latter  expression  refers  to  a  custom  of  Arab  tribes,  who,  according  to  Herodot. 
iii.  8  cut  the  hair  over  the  temples  in  honor  of  the  God  Orotal,  a  practice  which  was 
forbidden  to  the  Israelites,  Lev.  xix.  27,  as  idolatrous.  Nothing  is  known  of  the 
practice  of  circumcision  among  the  Ammonites  and  Moabites  ;  the  Edomites,  at 
least  at  a  later  period,  certainly  did  not  have  it,  since  according  to  the  account  of 
Josephus,  Ant.  xiii.  9.  1,  they  were  forced  by  Hyrcanus  to  accept  circumcision. 
On  the  other  hand,  what  Herodotus  (ii.  104,  comp.  with  chap.  36)  and  Diodorus, 
BiUioth.  i.  28,  as  well  as  Josephus,  Ant.  viii.  10.  3,  and  Against  Ap.  i.  32,  relate  of 
the  practice  of  circumcision  among  the  Egyptians  is  confirmed  by  the  researches 
of  Egyptologists  ;  still  the  custom  appears  not  to  have  been  imiversal,  but  to  have 
been  confined  to  the  priests  (comp.  Philo,  De  Circumcisione  ed.  Mang  ii.  p.  210,  and 
the  testimony  of  Origen).  Accordingly  the  possibility  of  a  connection  between  the 
Israelitish  circumcision  and  Egypt  must  be  admitted,  although  it  is  embarrassed 
by  the  account  of  Gen.  xxii.  in  the  time  of  Abraham  ;  but  the  matter  does  not 
admit  of  a  satisfactory  settlement  (3).]  Wholly  to  be  rejected  is  another  view,  which 
derives  the  practice  from  the  Cannanitish  Saturn-worslirp.  The  narrative  in  Gen. 
xxxiv.  shows  tliat  it  was  not  originally  a  Canaanitish  usage,  and  the  myth  in 
Pseitdo- tSancho/ntitJion  (ed.  Orelli,  p.  36),  that  Ciironos,  to  avert  his  father's  wrath, 
circumcised  liimself  and  his  companions,  does  not  even  prove  that  the  Phoenicians 
viewed  circumcision  as  a  consecration  to  Saturn.  The  hypothesis,  which  in  recent 
times  has  repeatedly  been  put  forth  with  confidence,  that  circumcision  in  Israel 
is  simply  a  milder  form  of  the  mutilationa  performed  in  the  religions  of  Western 
Asia  in  honor  of  the  Deity,  cannot  adduce  a  shadow  of  argument  in  its  favor. 
Mutilation  absolutely  excluded  from  the  congregation  of  God,  Deut.  xxiii.  2. 
But  even  from  a  purely  physical  point  of  view,  circumcision  was  viewed  as  increas- 
ing instead  of  destroying  the  power  of  reproduction. 

(1)  [Comp.  the  art.  "  Beschneidung"  in  ITerzog,  ii.  p.  343  ff.,  and  "  Circumci- 
sion" in  Scliaff's  Herzog,  vol.  i.;  also  F.  W.  Schultz  in  Zockler's  Handhuch  d&r 
theol.WiHHrnschaften,  i.  p.  23!)  ff.  ]. 

(2)  So  e..^.  Baur,  "  Ueber  die  urspriingliche  Bedeutung  des  Passahfestes  und 
des  Beschneidungsritus, "  Tiib.  Zeitschr.  1832. 


§   88.]  RELIGIOUS   IMPORT   OF  CiRCUMClSlOK.  193 

(3)  [lu  Josh.  V.  4  fi.  we  are  told  that  circumcision  was  neglected  during  the 
wandering  in  tlie  desert,  and  hence  had  to  be  reintroduced  before  the  entrance  of 
the  Israelites  into  the  land  of  Canaan.  According  to  Ex.  iv.  24  ff.  (see  §  88)  it 
was  neglected  in  the  case  of  a  son  of  Moses.  We  see  from  this  how  necessary  it 
is  to  guard  against  the  inference  that  because  a  command  was  not  observed,  it 
therefore  did  not  exist.] 

§88. 

Continuation  :  Religious  Import  of  Circumcision  in  the  Old  Testament.      The  Giving 

of  a  Name. 

To  understand  the  Old  Testament  meaning  of  circumcision,  we  must  start  from  the 
fact  that,  according  to  Gen.  xvii.,  it  was  instituted  before  Isaac,  the  son  of 
promise,  was  begotten.  It  obviously  presupposes  that  the  natural  life  is  tainted 
by  impurity,  which  must  be  removed  in  those  who  are  called  to  covenant  fellow- 
ship with  God.  Circumcision  may  be  named,  with  Ewald,  "the  offering  of  the 
body  ;"  and  this  is  carried  out  in  a  way  that  shall  declare  the  propagation  of  the 
race  of  revelation  to  be  consecrated  to  God  (I).  The  Old  Testament  now-here  gives 
expression  to  the  idea,  which  many  entertain,  that  the  propitiation  of  God's  jus- 
tice is  a  distinct  element  in  the  rite,  expressed  by  the  shedding  of  the  blood. 
This  thought  is  not  contained  in  Gen.  xvii.  14,  where  the  cutting  oflE  of  the  un- 
circumcised  is  simply  the  punishment  of  disobedience.  Nor  does  the  idea  lie  in 
the  passage  adduced  by  Ewald  (3),  Ex.  iv.  24  ff.  As  Moses  is  returning  to 
Egypt,  Jehovah  falls  on  him — such  is  the  expression— to  slay  him  (which  probably 
indicates  a  mortal  sickness).  Then  Zipnorah  cuts  off  her  son's  foreskin,  and  with 
it  (3)  touches  his,  i.e.  (on  the  most  probable  interpretation)  Moses'  feet,  and  says, 
"A  bloody  bridegroom  (D-p^-jnO)  art  thou  to  me."  "  So  He  let  him  go.  She 
S'di^  hloody  h'idegroom  in  Teiexence  to  the  circumcision."  The  most  obvious  ex- 
planation of  the  passage  is,  that  Moses  had  omitted  the  circumcision  of  his  son — 
his  eldest  son,  it  seems — probably  because  Zipporah,  the  mother,  objected  to  the 
dangerous  operation.  For  this  he  is  punished  ;  for,  as  Knobel  well  observes, "  he 
who  is  to  bring  Pharaoh  to  do  his  duty  to  God's  firstborn  must  fulfil  his  own 
duty  to  the  firstborn  son  who  is  under  him,  but  belongs  to  God."  To  save  her 
husband,  Zipporah  performs  the  circumcision,  but  tells  him  that  she  is  united  to 
him  in  a  marriage  the  children  of  which  must  be  bought  with  blood.  The 
RahUnical  exegesis  is,  that  the  mother  calls  the  son  \T\T}  [spouse]  upon  his  circum- 
cision, as  the  Arabs  use  the  verb  hhathana  of  circumcision.  The  act  of  circum- 
cision would,  on  this  view,  be  regarded  as  a  betrothal  of  the  new^-born  offshoot 
of  the  people  to  the  covenant  God  (4) .  But  this  whole  interpretation  is  opposed 
to  the  fact  that  it  is  Moses,  and  not  the  child,  that  is  in  danger  of  death  because 
the  circumcision  is  omitted  (5).  Moreover,  and  this  consideration  is  decisive,  the 
Old  Testament  applies  the  symbol  of  the  bridal  and  marriage  relation  only  to  the 
fellowship  of  God  with  His  people— not  to  His  fellowship  with  individual  mem- 
bers of  the  nation.  Circumcision  is  essentially  distinguished  from  Christian 
baptism  by  not  constituting  an  immediate,  personal  relation  between  God  and  the 
recipient  of  the  ordinance.  It  does  not  operate  as  an  individual  means  of  grace. 
Circumcision  is  no  vehicle  of  sanctifying  forces,  as  it  makes  no  demand  in  refer- 
ence to  the  internal  state  of  the  recipient ;  of  whom  no  more  is  presupposed  than 


104     THE  COVEKAKT  OP  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY,    [§  88. 

that  he  is  by  birtli  of  Israelitish  descent,  or,  if  a  born  heathen,  has  been  externally 
incorporated  into  the  commonwealth  of  Israel.  The  rite  effects  admission  to  the 
fellowship  of  the  covenant  people  as  a.n  opus  operatum,  securing  to  the  individual 
as  a  member  of  the  nation  his  share  in  the  promises  and  saving  benefits  granted 
to  the  nation  as  a  whole  (G).  On  the  other  hand,  circumcision  certainly  makes 
ethical  demands  on  him  who  lim  received  it.  It  binds  him  to  obedience  to  God, 
whose  covenant  sign  he  bears  in  his  body  and  to  a  blameless  walk  before  Him  (cf . 
Gen.  xvii.  1).  Thus  it  is  the  sijinbol  of  the  renewal  and  purification  of  heart.  This 
signification  of  the  rite  is  in  the  Old  Testament  specially  brought  out  in  the  use  of 
the  phrase,  uncircuincision  of  hearty  to  denote  a  want  of  receptivity  for  the  things 
of  God,  Lev.  xxvi.  41,  Jer.  ix.  25  (Ezek.  xliv.  7)  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
purification  of  the  heart,  by  which  it  becomes  receptive  for  the  things  of  God,  and 
capable  of  executing  God's  will,  is  called  circumcision  of  the  heart,  Deut.  x.  IG, 
XXX.  G  (Jer.  iv.  4),  etc.  (7). 

With  circumcision  was  combined  the  naming  of  tlie  child,  which  although  it  is 
first  expressly  mentioned  in  Luke  i.  59,  ii.  21,  is  clearly  indicated  by  the  con- 
nection of  Gen.  xvii.  5  with  what  follows  and  xxi.  3  f.  By  this  it  is  signified 
that  his  name  expresses  his  having  a  place  in  the  divine  covenant  (8).  How  fre- 
quently the  giving  of  a  name  was  in  Israel  an  act  of  religious  confession,  is  seen 
in  the  meanings  of  numerous  biblical  proper  names  (9). 

(1)  [H.  Schultz,  p.  401  ;  F.  W.  Schultz,  in  Zockler's  HanMuch,  i.  p.  240  ;  Koh- 
ler,  i.  p.  112,  regard  circumcision  (since  the  rite  is  a  purification  of  the  seat  and 
spring  of  life)  as  a  syml)ol  of  the  purification  and  sanctification  of  the  whole  life. 
That  it  binds  those  who  receive  it,  since  they  are  thei'eby  brought  into  the  cov- 
enant community,  to  the  sanctification  of  the  life,  has  been  shown  in  the  preceding 
section,  but  whether  it  directly  signifies  this  is  another  question.  A  peculiar 
view  of  circumcision  is  given  in  Bestmann's  Oeschichte  der  christl.  Sitte  i.  p.  53, 
and  248.] 

(2)  Cf.  Ewald,  Antiquities,  p.  93  f.     Also  Baur,  I.e. 

(3)  V^TS\  Hiphil,  as  Isa.  vi.  7.  The  V-^i  is  the  foreskin.  The  expression  does 
not  mean  "  cast  it  at  his  feet." 

(4)  It  is  natural  to  apply  to  the  child  under  the  knife  of  circumcision  the 
account  of  the  closing  of  the  covenant  in  Ezek.  xvi.  G  ff.  :  "I  said  to  thee  when 
thou  wast  lying  in  thy  blood,  Live.  And  I  sware  to  thee,  and  entered  into  cov- 
enant with  thee,  that  thou  shouldest  be  mine." — The  further  interpretation,  that 
the  fiowing  of  the  blood  contains  a  propitiation  for  the  inborn  guilt  and  impurity 
of  human  nature,  might  be  accepted  ;  but  Baur'a  notion  that  the  passage  implies 
that  the  rite  of  circumcision  is  a  propitiation  offered  to  a  threatening  power  of 
nature,  to  a  gloomy  fate,  gives  the  ordinance  a  sense  directly  opposed  to  the  Old 
Testament  faith  in  God. 

(5)  As  rightly  observed  by  Deyling,  de  sponso  sanguinum,  in  his  Ohservatlones 
8acr(B,  ii.  p.  152  ff. 

(6)  On  this  point,  comp.  Zezschwitz,  I.e.  i.  p.  222  f. 

(7)  Other  ends  contemplated  by  circumcision,  and  expressed  by  ancient  writers, 
must  be  viewed  as  at  best  secondary :  such  is  the  dietetic  use  of  the  rite,  which, 
says  Herod,  ii.  37,  is  observed  KaHapLOTrjTOQ  eIvekev  ;  or  the  surgical  value,  men- 
tioned by  Philo,  I.e.  p.  211,  as  the  best  means  against  carbuncle;  or  the  value 
for  tlie  growth  of  the  nation,  also  mentioned  by  Philo,  of  an  observance  that  in- 
creases fecundity.  But  Philo  also  views  it  as  a  symbol  of  the  purification  of  the 
soul. 

(8)  Hence  in  later  times  Jewish  proselytes  were  wont  to  take  new  names. 
Particulars  in  my  article  "Name,"  in  Herzog's  EncrjTc,  x.  p.  193  fl'. 


§   8y.]  BLESSING    AND   CURSE.  19.j 

(9)  The  names  of  every  nation  are  an  important  irunument  of  national  spirit 
and  manners,  and  thus  the  Hebrew  names  bear  important  testimony  to  the  pecul- 
iar vocation  of  this  nation.  No  nation  of  antiquity  has  such  a  proportion  of 
names  of  religious  import.  The  collection  in  Matth.  Killer's  Ononuisticum  Sacrum, 
1706,  which  requires  to  be  sifted,  contains  more  tlian  a  hundred  such  names  of 
men  (comp.  also  Jerome,  De  Numliilbus  Hehralcis,  (^pp.  ed.  Vail,  iii.)  ;  and  how 
very  common  these  names  were,  is  seen  from  a  glance  at  the  long  list  of  names, 
e.g.,  in  Chronicles.  (Tliere  are  far  fewer  religious  names  of  women,  in  compar- 
ison with  secular  names,  especially  those  taken  from  favorite  animals,  plants,  etc. 
Many  names  of  men,  too,  are  taken  from  the  animal  kingdom  (Sue  Simonis, 
Oiiomast.  V.  T.  p.  393  If.),  which  is  explicable  from  the  early  nomadic  life  of  the 
nation.)  The  older  of  these  names  are  generally  compounded  with  7X,  less  often 
with  '"W  and  ll^f  (cf.  §  47,  and  Ewald's  Lehrhiich,  8th  ed.  §  67  II.)  ;  while  later, 
especially  from  David's  time,  they  chiefly  appear  compovmded  with  niil'.  They 
express  something  in  regard  to  God's  attributes,  or  His  almighty,  righteous,  and 
gracious  rule,  and  the  like  ;  or  they  express  thanks,  hopes,  and  petitions  to  God. 
(Some  names  contain  regular  formula  of  prayer;  as,  for  example,  El-yo-enai  (1 
Chron.  iii.  24,  iv.  36,  vii.  8)  =  To  Jehovah  are  mine  eyes  (directed)  ;  Hodawyah 
(iii.  24,  V.  24)  =  Thank  Jehovah.  Specially  noticeable  is  the  female  name 
Hatslel-poni  (iv.  8)  =  Give  shade.  Thou  who  turnest  to  me  Thy  countenance 
(Ewald,  I.e.  p.  680).  The  meaning  of  these  names  was  generally  obvious, 
though  sometimes  niri'  especially  was  much  shortened.  (On  the  last  point,  see 
the  statements  of  Caspari,  Ueber  Micha  den  Morasthiten,  p.  8  iT.).  Often,  no  doubt, 
the  giving  of  such  religious  names  was  a  mere  matter  of  custom  ;  even  Ahab  gave 
his  two  sons  by  Jezebel  names  compounded  with  "i^Y^".  (Ahaziah  and  Joram).  But 
it  is  equally  certain  that  in  many  cases  the  choice  of  the  name  (which  seems  to 
have  been  often  made  by  the  mothei-.  Gen.  xxix.  32  ff.,  chap.  xxx.  ;  1  Sam.  i.  20, 
iv.  21)  was  an  act  of  religious  confession  on  the  part  of  the  parents. — A  religious 
consecration  for  girls  is  neither  prescribed  at  the  institution  of  circumcision,  nor 
at  a  later  date.  This  agrees  with  the  dependent  position  of  woman,  who  has  a 
part  in  national  and  covenant  life  only  as  the  partner  of  man — as  wife  and  mother 
(See  Kurtz,  Hist,  of  the  Old  Covenant,  i.  p.  238).  Girls  are  said  to  have  been  named 
when  weaned. 


THIRD   DOCTRINE. 

DIVINE  RETRIBUTION. 

§89. 

Blessing  and  Curse. 

As  the  people  bound  themselves  when  the  covenant  was  concluded  to  observe 
the  law,  so  Jehovah  on  His  part  binds  Himself  to  fulfil  to  the  nation,  so  long  as 
it  observes  its  obligations,  all  the  promises  He  makes,  and  to  grant  it  the  fulness 
of  His  blessing ;  but  in  the  opposite  case,  to  execute  on  the  people  the  punish- 
ment of  a  breach  of  covenant.  For  if  man  turns  against  God,  God  turns  against 
him.  Comp.,  as  main  passage.  Lev.  xxvi.  23  f.  ;  also  I)eut.  xxxii.  21  ;  Ps.  xviii. 
26  f.  (1).  The  jus  talionis,  the  principle  that  a  man  is  dealt  with  as  he  himself 
deals,  is,  in  fact,  the  principle  of  penal  justice  in  Mosaism,  Ex.  xxi.  23  f.  (cf. 
§  99),  As  the  whole  theocracy  is  purely  earthly,  blessing  and  curse  are  confined 
to  the  life  on  earth.  Where  the  will  of  the  holy  God  is  to  be  fulfilled  in  every 
action,  there  must  also  His  righteous  rule  be  seen  in  the  corresponding  lot  of 
man.     The  nation  in  its  ordinary  life,  as  well  as  its  history,  must  display  the 


190      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  ANL)  THE  THEOCHACY.    [§  80. 

orderings  of  divine  retribution.  At  the  same  time  it  is  to  be  noted,  that  when 
Mosaism  teaches  that  piety  brings  good  fortune,  and  godlessness  misfortune,  this 
does  not  justify  one  in  arguing  directly  from  every  misfortune  to  a  corresponding 
sin,  and  from  every  piece  of  good  fortune  to  corresponding  rigliteousness.  For 
God  sometimes  shows  patience  tovpard  the  wicked,  Gen.  xv.  16,  and  spares  them 
for  the  sake  of  the  righteous,  xviii,  26  S.  ;  while,  conversely,  the  righteous  are 
proved  and  purified  by  affliction  (as  in  the  history  of  Joseph).  But  in  the  end, 
man's  earthly  lot  must  correspond  to  his  desert. 

The  divine  hlessing  in  a  single  word  is  Life,  CH,  Deut.  xxx.  15  f.  ;  comp. 
also  iv.  1,  viii.  1  (2)  ;  especially  frequent  in  the  Proverbs,  xii.  28,  viii.  35,  and 
elsewhere.  Life  embraces  all  the  good  things  that  pertain  to  earthly  prosperity  : 
long  life  on  the  blessed  soil  of  the  promised  land,  Ex.  xx.  12,  Deut.  iv.  40,  xi.  9 
ff.,  xxx.  20  (3)  ;  the  blessing  of  children,  fertility  of  the  soil,  victory  over 
enemies.  Lev.  xxvi.  3  ff.,  Deut.  xxviii.  1  fE.  ;  compare,  in  illustration,  passages  in 
the  Proverbs  like  iii.  2,  iv.  10,  etc.  But  it  is  not  these  earthly  benefits  iji  them- 
selves that  make  up  life, — as  has  been  often  charged  by  those  who  accuse  the  Old 
Testament  of  gross  Eudemonism.  The  idea  that  a  godless  man  possessing  such 
external  good  things  is  really  to  be  felicitated  cannot  be  entertained  from  the 
moral  standpoint  of  Mosaism  ;  but  the  earthly  good  things  form  a  state  of  felicity 
only  when  the  possession  of  them  is  united  with  the  experience  of  the  gracious 
presence  of  the  covenant  God,  so  that  they  are  pledges  of  His  favor.  Thus,  in 
the  leading  passage  Lev.  xxvi.,  the  whole  promise  of  earthly  happiness  closes  in  ver. 
11  with  the  words  :  ' '  And  I  will  set  my  tabernacle  among  you  ;  and  my  soul  shall 
not  abhor  you.  And  I  will  walk  among  you,  and  will  be  your  God,  and  ye  shall 
be  my  people."  Hence  it  is  quite  in  the  spirit  of  Mosaism  when  David,  Ps.  iv. 
8,  says  that  he  would  not  exchange  his  heart's  delight  in  God  for  the  abundance  of 
the  godless  ;  when,  xvi.  2,  5,  he  praises  Jehovah  as  the  highest  good  ;  or  when, 
Ps.  Ixiii.  4,  he  says,  "Thy  favor  is  better  than  life  ;"  only  that  the  Old  Testa- 
ment standpoint,  as  such,  does  not  permit  the  godly  to  look  away  from  earthly 
reward,  but  rather  demands  that  outward  prosperity  shall  ultimately  confirm  the 
fellowship  with  God  in  which  the  godly  knows  himself  to  stand  (4).— The 
pattern  of  individual  prosperity  in  the  Old  Testament  is  the  life  of  the  patriarchs 
in  friendship  with  God,  and  in  the  rich  experience  of  His  blessing  ;  their  end 
"in  peace,  in  a  good  old  age,"  as  the  expression  runs.  Gen.  xv,  15,  xxv,  8,  etc., 
full  of  confident  hope  of  the  fulfilment  of  the  divine  promise  resting  on  their 
descendants,  xlviii.  21,  1.  24,  etc.  (cf.  1  Kings  ii.  4).  The  picture  of  the  happy 
state  of  the  nation — separated  from  the  nations  of  the  earth,  endowed  with  the 
rich  yield  of  its  land,  victorious  over  all  its  foes,  blessed  in  the  experience  of  the 
grace  of  its  God — is  drawn  in  Deut.  xxxiii,  27-29. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  result  of  the  hrealcing  of  the  covenant  on  the  part  of  the 
people  issues  in  the  withdrawal  of  all  these  Nessings, — shortening  of  life,  childless- 
ness, scarcity  and  famine, — that  Israel  may  know  that  it  possesses  all  natural 
blessings  only  as  the  gift  of  God  (comp.,  as  a  main  passage,  Hos.  ii.  8  ff.)  ;  also 
political  misfortune,  defeat  by  foes  (5).  And  the  punishment  culminates  when 
the  servant  of  .Jehovah  who  refuses  to  serve  his  God  is  delivered  into  bondage  to 
other  nations — when  Israel  is  banished  from  the  house  of  God  (as  it  is  expressed 
in  IIos.  ix.  15),  and  therefore  from  the  land  with  which  the  theocracy  is  connected, 


I  90.]    DIVINE  ELECTIO>^  AKD  MOSAIC  DOCTRINE  OF  IlETRIBUTiON.        197 

and  scattered  among  all  nations  as  a  timid,  despised,  maltreated  people  ;  comp., 
as  main  passages  for  these  details,  Lev.  xxvi.  14-39  (6),  Deut.  xxviii.  15  ff.  If 
the  disasters  of  heathen  nations  are  a  witness  of  the  powerlessness  of  their  gods, 
Israel's  disasters,  on  the  contrary,  are  a  proof  of  the  reality  of  Israel's  God  and 
of  His  retributive  justice;  cf.,  especially,  Deut.  xxxii.  39  :  "See  novp^  that  I, 
I,  am  He,  and  there  is  no  god  beside  me  :  I  kill,  and  I  make  alive  ;  I  wound, 
and  I  heal:  neither  is  there  any  that  can  deliver  out  of  my  hand."  Hence, 
the  Old  Testament  history  is  not  marked  by  that  mendacious  patriotism  which 
conceals  national  adversity  (7). 

(1)  Lev.  xxvi.  23  f.  :  "If  ye  -walk  contrary  to  me  flj^  'Qi'  Drip'7n),  I  also  will 
walk  contrary  to  you  (""!i^3  D;)3i'  'JX-"-]X  *r^5'?ni)." — Ps.  xviii.  26  f.  ;  see  §  48. 

(2)  Deut.  XXX.  15  :  "  See  I  set  before  thee  this  day  life  and  good,''  etc.  ;  viii. 
1  :  "Ye  shall  keep  the  commandments,  that  ye  may  live." 

(3)  Ex.  XX.  12  :  "  That  thy  days  may  be  long,"  "etc.  ;  Deut.  xxx.  20  :  "This 
is  thy  life  and  the  length  of  thy  days,  that  thou  mayest  dwell  in  the  land  which 
Jehovah  svvare  unto  thy  fathers." 

(4)  With  this  point  is  couuected  the  discussion  of  the  doctrine  of  retribution  in 
the  Hhokhma  (§  245  ff.) 

(5)  Four  judicial  plagues  are  prominently  mentioned  in  Ezek.  xiv.  21  and  other 
passages, — sword,  famine,  wild  beasts,  and  pestilence. 

(6)  The  punishTuents  form  a  climax  ;  if  the  first  does  not  succeed,  "  then  I  will 
punish  you  seven  times  more  for  your  sins,  and  break  your  haughtiness  of  heart," 
Lev.  xxvi.  18  f.  ;  and  if  this  too  fails,  still  severer  chastisements  ensue,  ver.  23  if. 

(7)  Cf.  the  remarks  of  M.  v.  Niebuhr,  History  of  Assur  and  Babel,  p.  5,  where 
the  veracity  of  the  Old  Testament  history  is  justly  contrasted  with  the  patriotic 
lies  of  heathen  chroniclers. 

§  90. 

Solution  of  the  Apparent    Contradiction    between  Divine  Election  and    the  Mosaic 
Doctrine  of  Retribution.     Attacks  on  the  latter. 

But  if  Israel  by  breaking  the  covenant  is  exposed  to  God's  judgment  and  re- 
jected, this  seems  to  nullify  God's  decree  of  election  and  the  realization  of  the 
aim  of  His  kingdom,  which,  though  secured  by  God's  covenant  oath,  is  again 
dependent  on  man's  action.  But  to  this  difficulty  Mosaism  provides  an  answer. 
God's  compassionate  love  is  higher  than  His  penal  justice,  as  is  already  hinted  in  the 
relation  of  Ex.  xx.  6  to  ver.  5,  and  especially  is  expressed  in  xxxiv.  6  f.  (cf.  Deut. 
vii.  9).  God's  faithfulness  cannot  be  broken  by  man's  faithlessness.  His  judg- 
ments have  a  fixed  end,  and  therefore  are  always  in  measure,  as  is  taught  in  the 
beautiful  parable  in  Isa.  xxviii.  23-29.  They  are  so  executed  that  Israel  is  thereby 
brought  back  to  God,  and  the  perfecting  of  God's  kingdom  secured.  Israel  is  not 
annihilated  in  the  judgment  ;  even  in  banishment,  in  dispersion  among  the  nations, 
it  must  not  coalesce  with  them,  but  be  preserved  as  a  separate  nation  for  the 
fulfilment  of  its  vocation.  The  passages  in  which  the  Pentateuch  solves  the 
apparently  insoluble  contradiction  in  the  divine  decrees,  by  presenting  the  pros- 
pect of  a  future  restoration  of  Israel,  are  the  following  :— Lev.  xxvi.  44,  "  When 
they  be  in  the  land  of  their  enemies,  I  will  not  cast  them  away,  neither  will  I 
abhor  them,  to  destroy  them  utterly,  and  to  break  my  covenant  with  them."  If 
they  now  turn  to  Jehovah,  He,  remembering  his  covenant,  will  take  again  them 


IDS      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  90. 

as  His  people  and  bring  them  back.  See  Dent,  xxxii.  3G  ff.,  but  especially  the 
chief  passage,  Deut.  xxx.  1  flE.  :  "  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  when  all  these  things 
are  come  upon  thee,  the  blessing  and  the  curse,  which  I  have  set  before  thee,  and 
thou  shalt  call  them  to  mind  among  all  the  nations  whither  the  Lord  thy  God 
hath  driven  thee,  and  shalt  return  unto  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  shalt  obey  His 
voice  :  then  tlie  Lord  thy  God  will  turn  thy  captivity,  and  have  compassion  upon 
thee,  and  will  gather  thee  again  from  all  the  nations  whither  the  Lord  thy  God 
hath  scattered  thee.  If  any  of  thine  be  driven  out  unto  the  outmost  parts  of 
heaven,  from  thence  will  the  Lord  thy  God  gather  thee,  and  from  thence  will  He 
fetch  thee  :  and  the  Lord  thy  God  will  bring  thee  into  the  land  which  thy  fathers 
possessed,  and  thou  shalt  possess  it ;  and  He  will  do  thee  good,  and  multiply  thee 
above  thy  fathers."  The  final  restoration  of  the  people  is,  according  to  this,  an 
act  of  Ood  ;  but  it  is  effected  l^y  ethical  means,  through  the  conversion  of  the  people, 
for  tiie  order  of  God's  kingdom  excludes  all  magical  means.  The  end  of  this 
conversion  is  attained  when,  by  the  operation  of  divine  grace,  that  renovation  of 
heart  is  accomplished  in  virtue  of  which  tlie  law  is  no  longer  to  the  people  an  ex- 
ternal command,  but,  through  the  power  of  God,  the  cheerful  expression  of  their 
own  will  and  purpose.  P"'or,  as  the  last-cited  passage  continues  (ver.  6),  "Then 
the  Lord  thy  God  will  circumcise  thine  heart,  and  the  heart  of  thy  seed,  to  love 
the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thine  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  that  thou  mayest 
live."  Thus,  in  spite  of  man's  sin  and  faithlessness,  the  realization  of  the  divine 
decree  of  election,  the  perfecting  of  the  people  of  God,  is  firmly  based  in  God's 
faithfulness  and  mercy  (Rom.  xi.  25-36)  (1). 

The  attacks  made  on  Mosaism  by  Deists  and  hy  later  theologians,  on  account  of  its 
doctrine  of  retribution,  rest  mainly  on  the  assertion  that  Mosaism  has  no  higher 
motives  to  present  in  favor  of  obedience  to  the  law  than  the  selfish  desire  of  re- 
ward and  the  fear  of  punishment  ;  that  this  national  delusion,  as  De  Wette  calls 
the  Mosaic  doctrine  of  retribution,  made  the  nation  of  Israel  vastly  unhappy, 
and  engendered  a  gloomy  view  of  life,  which  destroys  the  fair  harmony  of 
man  with  the  world,  in  which  the  Greek  appears  so  nobly  (2)  ;  while,  finally, 
objection  is  made  to  the  absence  of  a  doctrine  of  future  retribution. — The  general 
answer  to  these  objections  is  contained  in  our  previous  statements.  A  morality 
which  rests  on  the  basis  of  faith  in  the  elective  grace  and  providential  faithful- 
ness of  the  covenant  God,  and  whose  doctrine  of  the  good  culminates  in  the 
prominence  assigned  to  fellowship  with  this  God,  cannot  surely  be  accused  of 
gross,  sensuous  Eudemonism.  It  is  certainly  a  limitation  in  Mosaism,  in  compar- 
ison with  the  higher  stage  of  New  Testament  revelation,  that  fellowship  with  God 
cannot  be  thought  of  apart  from  corresponding  earthly  blessings,  and  that  life  is 
not  yet  understood  as  life  everlasting  ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  the  earnest  way 
in  which  Mosaism  carries  out  the  postulate  of  a  moral  government  of  the  world, 
the  manner  in  which  it  forbids  all  fatalistic  consolation  in  adversity  and  arouses 
the  conscience  of  the  sufferer,  and  in  general,  the  way  in  which  it  instils  into  the 
whole  life  reverence  for  a  holy,  divine  power  present  in  all  human  events,  elevate 
this  religion  far  above  all  forms  of  heathenism.  Thus  the  moral  life  of  Israel  has 
a  freshness  and  energy  which  stand  in  the  strongest  contrast  with  the  Egyptian 
civilization,  which  is  ever  busy  only  with  thoughts  concerning  death  and  the 
future  state  (3). 


§    01.]  THE    ibEA    OF   tilE    DIVlNE    KtiTGSfitf.  199 

(1)  The  application  of  this  law  of  divine  <,nace  to  a  single  family— viz.  that  of 
David — is  given  in  3  Sam.  vii.  14  ff. 

(2)  See  especially  an  essay  by  De  Wette,  which  in  other  respects  contains 
much  that  is  good,  "  Beitrag  zur  Charakterisiik  des  Hebraismus,"  in  Daub's 
and  Creuzer's  StuiUen^  iii.  p.  241  S.. 

(3)  Yet  the  foundation  of  a  hope  of  immortality  that  is  full  of  meaning — such 
a  hope  as  can  only  arise  in  connection  with  the  fact  of  the  vanquishing  of  death 
— is  laid  in  the  institution  of  a  fellowship  of  man  with  God,  the  ever-living. 
The  imperishableness  of  tiiis  fellowship  is  felt  to  be  sure,  in  the  first  instance, 
because  God's  eternity  secures  the  everlasting  duration  of  His  people  (cf.  Ps.  cii. 
28  f.)  ;  but  the  growing  intensity  with  which,  in  the  further  development  of 
tiie  Old  Testament  religion,  fellowship  with  God  becomes  the  experience  of  indi- 
vidual saints,  serves  to  arouse  a  presentiment  of  the  eternal  destiny  of  the  indi- 
vidual also  (see  my  Commenlationes,  p.  71  ff.).  [Art.  "  Volk  Gottes."J  We  shall 
connect  with  this  point  in  the  Prophetic  Eschatology  (comp.  §  325  f.). 


SECOND   CHAPTER. 

THE     THEOCRACY. 
§91. 

The  Idea  of  the  Divine  Kingship. 

The  form  of  government  in  the  commonwealth  founded  by  Moses  is  the  goV' 
ernment  of  Ood, — dEotcparla,  as  Josephus,  who  seems  to  have  invented  this  word, 
calls  it  (1).  Jehovah  is  the  King  of  Israel.  The  Old  Testament  idea  of  the  divine 
kingship  expresses,  not  God's  general  relation  of  power  toward  the  world  (as 
being  its  creator  and  supporter),  but  the  special  relation  of  His  government 
toward  His  elect  people  (2).  The  patriarchs  called  Him  Lord  and  Shepherd, 
and  it  is  not  until  He  has  formed  a  people  for  Himself  by  bringing  Israel  up  out 
of  Egypt  that  He  is  called,  Ex.  xv.  18,  "  He  who  is  King  for  ever  and  ever."  But 
the  real  beginning  of  His  kingly  rule  was  on  that  day  on  which  He  bound  the 
tribes  of  Israel  into  a  community  by  the  promulgation  of  the  law  and  the  forming 
of  the  legal  covenant :  "Then  He  became  King  in  Jeshurun,"  Deut.  xxxiii.  5  (3). 
The  idea  of  the  divine  kingship  is  therefore  connected  with  that  of  the  Holy 
One  and  Creator  of  Israel  ;"  comp.  Isa.  xliii.  15,  Ps.  Ixxxix.  19.  On  the  divine 
kingship  in  Israel,  compare  also  the  passages.  Num.  xxiii.  21  ;  Isa.  xli.  31,  xliv. 
6  ;  Ps.  X.  16.  In  Ps.  xlviii.  3,  Jehovah  is  called  the  "  Great  King  ;"  in  xxiv.  7  ff., 
the  "King  of  Glory."  Although  He  has  been  the  King  of  His  people  in  all 
ages,  Ps.  Ixxiv.  13,  He  will  not  become  the  King  of  the  nations  until  a  future 
time,  when  He  comes  in  the  last  revelation  of  His  kingdom  (4).  In  Him,  as 
King,  all  political  poicers  are  united  (their  earthly  bearers  are  only  Jehovah's 
organs)  ;  church  and  state,  if  we  may  speak  thus,  are  here  joined  in  immediate 
union.  As  King,  He  is  the  Lawgiver  and  Judge  of  His  people,  Isa.  xxxiii.  22. 
Legal  and  civil  regulations  are  but  an  efflux  of  the  divine  will.  Some  things, 
indeed,  that  rest  on  usage  are  adhered  to  or  tolerated  on  account  of  the 
oKXr/poKapSia  of  the  people  (comp.  Matt.  xix.  8)  ;  still  even  these  things  are  limited 


200      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOT)  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  93. 

and  regulated  by  provisions  of  the  law.  Lastly,  as  King,  God  is  also  the  leader 
of  His  people  s  army  (5)  (comp.  Num.  xxiii.  21)  ;  Israel  forms  the  hosts  of  Jehovah, 
Ex.  xii.  41  (niri'  r>iN:3}f)  (He  goes  before  them  as  leader  in  the  combat,  Num.  x. 
35)  ;  Israel's  battles  are  Hin^  n'ian'7D,  Num.  xxi.  14.  An  example  of  this  is  the  first 
battle  witli  Amalek,  in  which  Israel  conquers  by  Moses'  hands  held  up  in  prayer 
(Ex.  xvii.  8-16)  (6). 

(1)  Josephus  says  in  his  book  c.  Ap.  ii.  17  :  "  Ot  fisv  fwvapx'iaig,  ol  Se  rale  oXiyuv 
6vvacTeiaig,  uIaol  6i  -o'lg  rrTiT/Oeaiv  iwiTpetpav  ttjv  k^ovciav  tuv  noAiTev/idruv.  '0  S'^fihepoc 
vofiodeTf/g  tig  /i£v  TovTuv  ovSoTiovv  aTTEiSev,  (jf  6'av  rig  eliroi  jSiaadfisvog  rbv  loyov^  deoKpa- 
Tiav  anedEL^e  to  7ro?uTEv/ia^  deC)  r?jv  apx^v  Kal  to  KpaTog  dvadeig,  Kal  neiaag  e'lg  skeIvov  anavTag 
a(popa.v,''^  etc. 

(2)  The  nation  therefore  calls  on  God  as  its  King  in  this  specific  sense,  Ps.  xliv. 
5,  Ixviii.  25,  etc. 

(3)  The  subject  in  Deut.  xxxiii.  5  is  Jehovah  ;  it  is  quite  wrong  to  take  Moses 
for  the  subject. 

(4)  This  will  be  further  shown  in  the  Prophetic  Theology  (comp.  §  227  f.). 

(5)  "LTpaTTj-yog  avTOKpaTup,  as  Josephus  expresses  himself  {Ant.  iv.  8.  41). 

(6)  The  description  of  the  theocratic  regulations  is  most  fitly  divided  into 
two  sections  :  in  the  first,  we  have  to  exhibit  the  whole  theocratic  organism, 
and,  along  with  this,  to  treat  of  the  connected  ordinances  of  law  and  justice  ; 
in  the  second,  we  have  to  delineate  the  ordinances  of  worship. 


FIRST   DOCTRINE. 


THE  THEOCRATIC  ORGANISM,  AND  THE  ORDINANCES  OF  LAW  AND 
JUSTICE  CONNECTED  THEREWITH. 

I.    THE   THEOCRATIC   ORGANIZATION   OP   THE   PEOPLE. 

§92. 

The  Division  into  Tribes.     Israel's  Representation  before  Jehovah. 

The  natural  division  of  the  people  is  into  twelve,  or,  as  Joseph  receives  double 
tribal  rights  in  Ephraim  and  Manasseh  (Gen.  xlviii.  5),  thirteen  tribes,  r\^t3n  or 
D'pDK^  (LXX  (pvAa'i), — the  former  of  these  words  apparently  designating  the 
tribes  more  in  their  genealogical  division  and  natural  relations,  the  latter  (ac- 
cording to  the  meaning  of  tO???^,  Sceptre)  more  their  political  constitution  (1). 
But  although  Levi  received  no  special  tribal  territory,  the  number  twelve  still 
remains  for  all  political  relations  ;  while,  on  the  contrary,  wherever  Levi  is 
numbered,  the  two  tribes  of  Joseph  appear  as  only  one  (2).  Thus,  in  the 
prophecy  in  Ezek.  xlviii.,  in  speaking  of  the  division  of  the  land,  vers.  1-7,  23- 
28,  Manasseh  and  Ephraim  are  reckoned  as  two  tribes  ;  and  on  the  contrary,  in 
vers.  30-35,  where  it  is  said  that  the  twelve  gates  in  the  New  Jerusalem  shall  be 
called  by  the  names  of  the  twelve  tribes,  Joseph  is  reckoned  as  but  one  tribe 
(3).— These  twelve  tribes  together  form  the  priestly  kingdom  (D'jnJD  fipSoo, 
Ex.  xix.  6).  But  though  Korah  and  his  company  are  so  far  in  the  rjo-ht  Num. 
xvi.  3,   that   "all  the  congregation  are   holy  together,    and  the  Lord  is  among 


§    92.]  THE   DIVISION    INTO   TRIBES.  201 

them,"  yet  the  idea  is  inadequately  realized.  On  account  of  their  uncleanness 
and  sinfulness  (comp.  Ex.  xi.x.  21,  etc.),  the  congrejjution  are  able  to  draw  near 
to  God  only  by  means  of  a  jiropitiatlon  (comp.  §  127).  Every  one  who  at  twenty 
years  of  age  entered  the  army  of  Jehovah  had  to  pay  at  the  mustering  the  sum  of 
half  a  shekel  of  the  sanctuary  as  "t^ii,  "covering,"  propitiation,  Ex.  xxx.  11- 
16, — the  rich  giving  no  more  and  the  poor  no  less,  because  they  are  equal  in 
God's  sight  (comp.  §  136,  4).  A  whole  series  of  other  institutions  is  directed  to 
such  propitiation  ;  but  this  thought  is  pre-eminently  expressed  by  the  introduc- 
tion of  a  repi'esentative  body  between  Jthavah  and  the  people.  A  priesthood 
springing  out  of  natural  relations  existed  even  before  the  time  of  Moses,  comp.  Ex. 
xix.  23.  In  the  time  of  the  jjatriarchs,  the  father  appears  as  the  piiestly  inter- 
cessor for  his  family  (comp.  also  Job  i.  5),  or  the  prince  as  priest  to  his  tribe,  as 
kingship  and  priesthood  were  united  in  Melchisedek  ;  and  Jethro  also  is  to  be 
reckoned  as  the  spiritual  and  civil  chief  of  Midian  (jH'?!  ^1"^?  Onk.  Ex.  ii. 
16,  iii.  1),  as  imam  and  sheikh.  Thus,  too,  the  priests  mentioned  in  Ex.  xix.  22 
must  have  possessed  the  priestly  dignity  in  virtue  of  a  higher  natural  position, 
whether,  as  Jewish  tradition  declares,  and  as  false  exegesis  finds  in  Gen.  xlix. 
3  (4),  the  priesthood  was  originally  connected  with  the  right  of  the  first-born, 
and  therefore  the  charge  of  the  public  worship  was  intrusted  to  the  first-born 
before  the  introduction  of  the  Aaronic  priesthood  (Mishna,  Sebahim  xiv.  4)  (5), 
or  whether  those  elders  who  in  Ex.  xxiv.  11  are  called  ''^'y^\  'J?  'Tyx  (nobles) 
were  called  to  this  honor.  At  a  still  later  time  (Num.  xvi.  2)  it  is  the 
princes  of  the  congregation  (Hlj;  'i^'fe'^)  wlio  are  its  representatives  (D'X'lp),  and 
especially  the  princes  of  the  tribe  of  the  first-born,  Reuben,  who  demand  a 
priesthood  on  the  broadest  basis. — But  all  claims  arising  from  the  right  of  nature 
are  set  aside  by  the  theocratic  law.  As  Israel  as  a  whole  is  a  holy  people  only  in 
virtue  of  the  divine  election,  and  as  all  the  regulations  of  the  covenant,  especially 
those  of  worship  (comp.  §  112),  rest  on  the  divine  enactment,  the  bestowing  of 
the  priesthood  can  also  be  only  an  act  of  divine  grace.  Those  only  whom  God 
Himself  has  called,  whom  He  has  brought  thither  and  sanctified  to  Himself  (Num. 
xvi.  7  compared  with  Heb.  v.  4),  are  permitted  to  draw  near  to  God  in  intercession 
for  the  people.  Certainly  "  out  of  the  midst  of  the  children  of  Israel,"  for  the 
representative  must  have  a  natural  connection  with  the  people  itself  ;  but  Aaron 
and  his  sons  are  chosen  for  the  priesthood  from  the  midst  of  this  people  by 
the  divine  good  pleasure  (Ex.  xxviii.  1,  comp.  1  Sam.  ii.  28)  ;  they  receive  their 
priesthood  as  a  gift,  Num.  xviii.  7  (HJr*?).  And  this  divine  act  of  election  took 
place  (see  Ex.  xxviii.  41,  xxix.  9)  earlier  than  the  occurrence  in  Ex.  xxxii.  (26)  ff., 
when  the  tribe  of  Levi  won  for  itself  a  blessing,  through  its  zeal  for  the  honor 
of  Jehovah  (6).  From  that  time  forward,  however,  Levi  as  a  tribe  appears  in  a 
mediatorial  position  between  Jehovah  and  the  people  (7)  ;  the  race  of  Aaron  rises 
from  its  midst  with  a  specific  priestly  prerogative,  and  in  such  a  way  that  the 
priesthood  itself  culminates  in  the  office  of  high  2)riest.  There  are  therefore  three 
grades  in  the  representation  of  the  people  before  Jehovah. 

(1)  The  tribal  constitution  which  (comp.  §  27)  %vas  formed  during  the  time  of 
the  people's  stay  in  Egypt  was  not  dissolved  by  Moses,  but  recognized  in  the 
theocratic  regulations.  Twelve  as  the  number  of  the  tribes  was  regarded  as  express- 
ing the  normal  state  of  the  covenant  people,  and  therefore  (Judg.   xxi.  17)    it  is 


202      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  92. 

regarded  us  a  calamity,  to  be  avoided  at  any  price,  that  a  tribe  should  disappear 
out  of  Israel. — This  number  twelve  is  so  entirely  identified  with  the  normal  state 
of  the  theocracy,  tliat  it  continues  to  be  the  signature  of  God's  people  even  in 
prophecy  (comp.  §224).  In  the  New  Testament,  too,  the  twelve  tribtis  continue  to 
be  the  type  of  the  covenant  people  (Acts  x.wi.  7  ;  Rev.  vii.  4  &.),  to  which  the 
number  of  the  apostles  corresponds. 

(2)  [According  to  Wellhausen  (i.  p.  1231?.,  and  especially  p.  148  ff.),  the  religious 
order  known  as  Levites  was  not  identical  witli  the  ancient  tribe  of  Levi.  The 
latter,  in  the  age  of  tlie  Judges,  disappeared  and  was  lost  among  the  dwellers  in 
the  wilderness  or  among  their  own  people  in  consecjuence  of  a  catastrophe  referred 
to  in  Gen.  .xlix.  5-7.  Tliis  history  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  is  in  his  view  supported  only  by 
that  passage,  regarded  as  a  prediction  after  the  event,  and  by  the  narrative  in  Gen. 
xxxiv.  The  difficulty  of  satisfactorily  explaining,  on  this  theory,  how  the  priestly 
order  ever  came  to  bear  the  name  of  Levites  he  himself  admits.  This  latter  fact  be- 
comes all  the  more  surprising,  on  Wellhausen's  assumption,  that  bad  associations 
were  connected  with  the  name  of  the  lost  tribe  of  Levi.  If  the  tribe  of  Levi,  like 
that  of  Simeon,  the  fate  of  which  it  is  claimed  to  have  shared,  once  possessed 
an  allotment  in  some  one  part  of  Palestine,  why  was  every  remembrance  of  it  lost, 
while  mention  is  made  of  the  allotment  of  Simeon  (Josh.  xix.  1  flf.)  ?  The  blessing  of 
Moses  in  Deut.  xxxiii.  presents  another  difficulty  in  the  way  of  accepting  Well- 
hausen's view  ;  for  it  is  unnatural  to  suppose  that  while  all  the  ether  utterances  in 
this  chapter  refer  to  tribes,  tiiat  alone  concerning  Levi,  which  occurs  in  the  midst 
of  them,  is  to  be  referred  to  an  order  (comp.  Wellhausen,  p.  138  ff.  ;  against  liim 
Bredenkamp,  p.  174  ;  Orelli,  in  Herzog,  2d  ed.,  art.  "  Levi,"  p.  629).  Observe  that 
even  the  position  of  the  utterance  appears  to  be  determined  by  the  genealogical 
point  of  view.  Wellhausen  himself  (p.  148)  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  tribe 
of  Levi  belongs  to  the  group  of  the  four  eldest  sons  of  Leah.  Thus  the  position 
of  the  utterance  after  that  concerning  the  two  other  sons  of  Leah  is  explained, 
while  no  mention  is  made  of  Simeon.] 

(3)  So  also  in  Jacob's  blessing,  Gen.  xlix.,  and  in  that  of  Moses,  Deut.  xxxiii, 

(4)  Comp.  the  Targums  of  Onkelos  and  Jerus.  Onkelos  interprets,  "Three 
things  belonged  to  Reuben — birthright,  priesthood,  and  kingship."  Luther  also 
translates,  "The  chief  in  the  sacrifice." 

(5)  The  young  men  who  were  set  apart  by  Moses  to  assist  at  the  sacrifice  (Ex. 
xxiv.  5)  are  taken  by  Onkelos  as  the  first-born  sons,  and  the  priests  mentioned  in 
xix.  22,  24  are  so  understood  by  Rashi  and  Aben  Esra.  In  opposition  to  this  ex- 
planation of  the  latter  passage,  comp.  Vitringa,  Observationes  Sacrce,  i.  p.  284. 
[Article,  "Levi,  Lcviten,  Levitenstadte,"  in  Herzog.] 

(G)  It  is  therefore  not  right  to  say  that  the  election  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  to  the 
]n'iesthooil  was  a  reward  for  that  deed  (comp.  Philo,   Vit.  Mas.  iii.  19). 

(7)  In  whatever  way  we  understand  tiie  difficult  passage  Ex.  xxxii.  29,  it  is 
clearly  indicated  in  Deut.  xxxiii.  9,  which  obviously  refers  to  Ex.  xxxii.,  that  the 
tribe,  by  its  zeal  for  Jehovah's  honor,  showed  itself  worthy  of  this  share  in  tiie 
priestly  honor  which  Aaron's  race  enjoyed  (comj).  §  29,  note  2).  [Wellhausen 
indeed  (comp.  p.  138  f.)  denies  this  reference,  and  finds  in  the  passage  the  thought 
that  the  priest  nmst  act,  in  the  service  of  Jehovah,  as  if  he  had  no  father,  mother, 
l>rother,  or  children  ;  for  in  order  to  become  a  priest  he  must  break  away  from  all 
family  bonds.  Of  the  latter  alleged  duty  the  history  says  nothing,  and  the  argument 
of  VVellliausen  from  the  history  of  Samuel  does  not  prove  it.  That  the'^words 
_"  neither  did  he  acknowledge  his  brethren,  nor  knew  lie  his  own  cliildren,"  even 
if  tlie  verbs  are  translated  in  the  present  tense,  would  not  be  accordant  with  his 
explanation,  is  felt  by  Wellhausen  himself.  That  one  should  forsake  not  only 
father  and  niDther,  but  also  wife  and  children,  in  order  to  enter  the  priesthood, 
he  says,  couhl  hardly  have  been  the  rule.  The  case  in  Deut.  xxxiii.  9  is  only  men- 
tioned as  an  extreme  example  of  self-sa(;rificc.  In  no  case  can  we  infer  from  it 
that  celibacy  was  recpiired,  but  only  that  the  priesthood  scarcely  gave  the  means 
of  support  to  a  man,  to  say  nothing  of  a  family  (I)  Dillmann,  dnlhe  other  hand, 
holds  fast  the  reference  to  Ex.  xxxii.  29  (see  his  Commentar.  on  the  latter  passao-e). 


§    1)3.]  REPRESENTATION    OF    ISRAEL   BY   THE   LEVITES.  203 

Bredenkamp  (p.l74  ff.)  has  thoroughly  discussed  the  passage  in  opposition  to  Well- 
liausen.]  Deut.  x.  8  does  not  contradict  this,  since  tliis  passage  must  be  taken  in 
connection  with  vers.  1-5  and  10  f.,  which  likewise  refer  to  Ex.  xxxii.  ff.  Vers.  6 
and  7  are  shown  by  their  whole  form  to  be  an  interpolation  which  ir.teirupts  the 
close  connection  between  vers.  5  and  8.  We  may  conjecture,  in  view  of  ix.  20 
that  the  author  of  this  gloss  made  the  insertion  in  order  to  indicate  the  accept- 
ance of  Moses'  prayer  on  behalf  of  Aaron,  who  died  much  later.  On  this  passage 
compare  especially  Ranke,  Unters.  uhcr  den  Pentateuch,  ii.  p.  283.  Riehm,  on  the 
contrary  [Die  G esetzgelnmg  Mods  im  Lande  Moah,  p.  237  f.)  fcircc;  again  on  Deuter- 
onomy a  gross  discrepancy  from  the  book  of  Numbers,  as  if  the  former  book  rep- 
resents the  Levites  as  chosen  only  after  Aaron's  death,  in  the  fortieth  year  of 
the  wandering  ! — As  regards  the  sense  of  Ex.  xxxii.  29,  it  is  to  be  observed  that 
the  view  which  sees  in  this  passage  a  repetition  of  the  words  in  which  Moses 
summons  the  Levites  to  execute  judgment  against  their  brethren,  as  a  sacrifice 
well  pleasing  to  God,  is  not  only  liable  to  other  objections,  but  does  not  conform 
to  the  strict  usage  of  Vav  consec.  cum  imperf.  Instead  of  "1^><'1,  we  should  on  this 
view  look  rather,  as  in  iv.  26,  for  "I0i<  IK.  From  the  common  use  of  the  expres- 
sion "  to  fill  the  hand"  (xxviii.  41,  xxix.  9  ;  2  Chron.  xiii.  9),  we  should  be  led  to 
think  of  an  offering  of  consecration,  which  the  Levites  had  to  offer  up  after  the 
deed  was  executed,  in  reference  to  the  calling  which  was  now  set  before  them 
[so  also  Dillmann].  What  can  be  brought  against  this  explanation  has  been  best 
collected  by  J.  G.  Carpzov,  Apparatus  hist.  crit.  antiquitatuni  sacri  cod.,  p.  103  f. 
On  the  contrary,  even  Targ.  Jon.  finds  in  the  passage  a  command  to  bring  an 
offering  of  expiation  for  the  shed  blood  ;  and  Kurtz,  History  of  the  Old  Cov- 
enant, iii.  p.  167,  has  given  the  same  explanation  [while  Kohler,  i.  p.  279,  regards 
it  as  an  offering  for  the  expiation  of  the  apostasy  of  the  people]. 


1.    THE   LEVITES    (1). 

§93. 

77ie  Mode  and  Meaning  of  the  Representation  of  Israel  'by  the  Levites. 

The  circumstances  of  the  dedication  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  are  represented  in  the 
following  manner  in  the  Pentateuch.  We  are  told  in  Ex.  xiii.,  that  from  the 
night  in  which  Israel  was  redeemed  all  the  first-born  males  among  man  and  beast 
were  dedicated  to  Jehovah.  But  instead  of  all  the  first-born  sons  then  living 
from  a  month  old  and  upward.  He  accepts  the  Levites  as  a  standing  gift  of  the 
people  (comp.  Num.  viii.  16  ;  and  instead  of  the  people's  cattle,  he  takes  the 
cattle  of  the  Levites,  Num.  iii.  11  f.,  45  (2).  [By  the  first-born,  who  were  repre- 
sented by  the  Levites,  are  meant  those  both  on  the  father's  and  the  mother's  side, 
that  is,  the  father's  first-born  by  each  of  his  wives]  (3). 

With  regard  to  the  sense  in  whicJi  the  Levites  tooTc  the  place  of  the  first-born  sons  ac- 
cording to  one  view,  the  Levites  were  accepted  by  Jehovah  to  take  charge  of 
the  priestly  services,  which  were  previously  incumbent  on  the  first-born  as  the  rep- 
resentatives of  the  families  ;  according  to  another  view,  the  substitution  of  the  Le- 
vites is  to  be  looked  upon  under  the  aspect  of  sacrifice.  In  order  to  get  at  the 
right  understanding,  we  must  proceed  from  the  latter  conception.  Nowhere  in 
the  Levitical  law  is  anything  said  of  an  entrance  on  priestly  rights  which  belonged 
already  to  the  first-born  children.  The  idea  lying  at  the  root  of  the  dedication 
of  the  Levitical  tribe  is  rather  this  : — As  the  Egyptians  on  account  of  their  guilt 
were  punished  iu  their  first-born  children,  so  that  the  children  took  ilie  place  of 


204      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  AVITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  03. 

the  whole  nation,  and  bore  as  a  sacrifice  the  curse  of  extermination  which  lay  on 
all ;  so,  conversely,  Israel — the  people  chosen  by  Jehovah  and  redeemed  from  the 
bondage  of  man— in  testimony  that  it  owes  its  existence  and  possessions  to  divine 
grace  alone,  that  it  is  indeUed  to  its  God  for  all  that  it  has  and  is,  must  bring  to 
God,  as  2><'ty>nent,  the  firstling  blessings  of  his  house  in  the  place  of  the  whole. 
But  the  offering  of  men  is  not  executed  by  sacrificing  them,  but  by  giving  them 
up  for  permanent  service  in  the  sanctuary  (comp.  the  story  of  Hannah,  1  Sam.  i. 
22,  28).  But  instead  of  all  the  first-born  sons  of  the  people  performing  this  ser- 
vice in  the  sanctuary,  one  tribe  is  permanently  taken  by  divine  choice  from  the  or- 
dinary callings  of  life,  and  placed  in  a  closer  and  particular  relation  toward  God, 
in  order  to  take  charge  of  tae  service  in  the  sanctuary,  and  thus  to  mediate  for 
the  people  the  communion  of  the  sanctuary.  The  Levites  were  thus,  in  the  first 
place,  the  living  sacrifice  by  which  the  people  rendered  fayment  to  Jehovah  for 
owing  their  existence  to  Him  ;  but  secondly,  since  the  Levites,  in  consequence  of 
this,  performed  in  the  sanctuary  the  service  which  the  people  ought  to  have  rendered 
through  their  first-born,  but  could  not  on  account  of  their  uncleanness  (Num. 
xviii.  22  f.),  they  serve,  in  their  substitution,  as  a  covering  or  an  atonement  09?/) 
also  for  the  people  who  come  near  to  the  sanctuary.  Num.  viii.  19.  In  the  former 
respect,  the  Levites  are  given  to  the  priests  (to  whom,  in  general,  the  use  of  the 
sacrifice  of  the  firstlings  is  given),  as  a  gift  assigned  to  them  by  Jehovah  (xviii.  6, 
comp.  with  iii.  9,  viii.  19)  ;  they  shall  (as  is  said  in  xviii.  2,  comp.  with  ver.  4, 
with  allusion  to  their  name)  jom  tliemsehes  to  the  priest  (117.')»  ^nd  serve  him.  In 
the  second  respect,  the  Levites  themselves  obtain  a  certain  share  in  the  mediatorial 
position  which  belongs  to  the  priesthood,  and  thus  the  Levitical  tribe  forms  the 
hasis  of  the  gradually  ascending  representation  of  the  people  before  God.  Em- 
phatically as  it  is  inculcated  on  the  Levites  (comiJ.  xvi.  10)  that  the  dedication  of 
their  tribe  does  not  involve  the  priesthood  proper,  yet  their  relative  share  in  the 
priestly  mediatorship,  in  distinction  from  the  other  tribes,  is  indicated  very  clearly 
in  the  regulations  of  encamjnnent, — in  the  Levites  having  to  encamp  with  the  priests, 
immediately  around  the  sanctuary,  "that  wrath  come  not  on  the  congregation  of 
the  children  of  Israel,"  i.  53.  comp.  §  20).— What  has  been  said  explains  further 
the  difference  which  exists  in  reference  to  the  Levites  between  the  legislation  in  the 
middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  and  Deuteronomy — namely,  that  the  former  gives 
special  emphasis  to  the  difference  hctween  the  piriests  and  Levites,  while  Deuteronomy, 
on  the  contrary,  tahes  p)riests  and  Levites  together,  as  one  holy  estate  in  distinction 
from  the  people  (6).  The  two  views  do  not  contradict,  but  supplement  each 
other.  That  Deuteronomy,  as  has  often  been  said,  knows  no  difference  between 
the  Levites  who  were  priests  and  those  who  were  not  is  decidedly  incorrect  •  for  in 
Deuteronomy,  where  simply  'iS  or  D:!*?  stands,  it  is  the  common  Levites  who  are 
meant ;  see  especially  xviii.  6-8,  comp.  with  vers.  3-5  (4).  This  is  true,  however, 
that  both  are  treated  as  essentialhj  a  single  ichole,  as  is  manifest  from  the  fact  that 
while  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  are  wont  to  denote  the  priests  as  "sons 
of  Aaron,"  in  Deuteronomy,  on  the  contrary,  the  Levitical  character  of  the  priest- 
hood is  made  prominent  by  the  priests  being  called  "  sons  of  Levi  "  (xxi.  5  xxxi. 
9),  or  "Levitical  priests"  (D'iSn  D'jniri),  xvii.  9,  18  (the  same  in  Josh.' iii.  3, 
etc.),  and  that  also  the  vocation  of  the  Levites  is  designated  by  terms  which  are 
elsewhere  applicfl  to  the  distinctively  priestly  calling,  viz.  "to  minister  in  Jeho- 


§    93.]  REPRESENTATION    OF    ISRAEL    BY    THE    LEVITES.  205 

vah's  name"  (HIH'  Qp3  mj?;),  "to  stand  before  Jehovah"  (Hin'  "JpS  ir?;;)  ;  c.fj. 
Deut.  xviii.  7,  comp.  with  ver.  5  and  xxi.  5,  xvii.  13  (5).  In  the  blessing  of 
Moses  (xxxiii.  8  flf.),  the  idea  of  the  priesthood  is  similarly  transferred  to  the 
tribe  ;  and  accordingly  the  ordinance  of  the  priesthood  is,  as  Mai.  ii.  4  designates 
it,  a  covenant  with  Levi.  (6). 

(1)  Compare  my  article,  "Levi,  Leviten,  Levitenstadte,"  in  Herzog's  lieal- 
EncyMoj). 

(2)  Since  (Num.  iii.  43)  the  number  of  first-born  sons  in  the  nation  amounts  to 
22,273,  and  the  number  of  the  Levites,  on  the  contrary,  only  to  22,000,  the  over- 
plus is  compensated  by  a  fine  of  five  shekels  apiece,  to  be  paid  to  Aaron  and  his 
sons  (vers.  4G-51). — There  must  be  a  mistake  in  the  reckoning  in  vers.  22.  28,  34, 
which  would  give  a  sum  of  22,300  ;  see  Kurtz,  I.  c.  200  f.  Others  suppose  that  these 
300  supernumerary  Levites  were  themselves  first-born  children. 

(3)  [See  Lund,  Alte  jilcl  Ileiligthumer,  p,  622,  and  Keil  in  Havernick's  Introduc- 
tion to  the  Pentateuch  i.  p.  308. 

(4)  [Comp.  the  explanation  of  this  passage  in  Riehm,  I.  c.  p.  35  f.]. 

(5)  On  the  contrary,  Num.  xvi.  9  says  the  Levites  are  appointed  'JS^  "IJ^J^!? 

(6)  [The  question  in  regard  to  the  persons  employed  in  conducting  the  cere- 
monial worship  lias  become  quite  prominent  in  the  recent  works  on  the  develop- 
ment of  the  religious  history  of  Lsrael.  Comp.  Wellhausen,  i.  123  ff.  ;  Orelli's 
supplement  to  the  art.  "Levi,  Leviten,"  in  the  2d  ed.  of  Herzog  :  Delitzsch, 
art.  ''Leviten,"  in  Riehm;  also  in  Luthardt's  Zeitschrift  fiir  kirchliche  Wissen- 
ficliuft,  H.  vi.;  Bredenkamp,  p.  174  flf. ;  Dillmann's  Commentnr.  on  Ex.  and  Lev.,  p. 
457  ff.,  nnd  especially  461;  Kittel,  "The  latest  phaseof  the  Pentateuch  Question," 
in  the  Theol.  Stud,  aus  Wiirltemberg,  1881,  p.  147  ff.  [Also  W.  Robertson  Smith, 
T/ie  Old.  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,  pp.  360,  436  ;  Green,  Manes  and  the  Proph- 
ets, pp.  76-83  ;  Curtiss,  The  Levitical  Priests. )  According  to  Wellhausen,  the  whole 
priestly  body,  which  had  nothing  in  common  with  the  ancient  tribe  of  Levi  ex- 
cept the  name  (see  §  92,  note  1)  bore  the  name  of  Levites.  Originally  few  in 
number,  they  became  in  time  numerous  and  influential,  but  no  difference  existed 
between  Levites  who  were  priests  and  those  who  were  not.  [All  priests  were 
Levites,  and  all  Levites  were  priests.]  The  distinction  between  them,  for  which 
a  preparation  was  made  by  the  superior  authority  attached  to  the  temple  in  Jerusa- 
lem and  its  priesthood  in  comparison  with  the  country  sanctuaries  and  their  priests, 
arose  in  consequence  of  the  centralizing  of  the  worship  under  Josiah.  The  Deu- 
teronomic  legislator  demanded,  however,  for  the  country  priests  the  right  to 
officiate  at  the  temple  in  Jerusalem,  but  Ezekiel  subsequently  demanded  (xliv. 
6  ff.),  as  a  punishment  to  them  for  havmg  ministered  at  the  high  places  (a  service 
which  previously  was  as  legitimate  as  that  in  Jerusalem),  that  the  country  priests 
should  be  degraded  to  the  rank  of  inferior  servants  in  the  temple  worsliip.  What 
was  simply  a  result  of  the  relations  and  the  selfishness  of  the  .Jerusalem  priest- 
hood was  thus  rested  by  Ezekiel  upon  a  moral  ground.  "He  wrapped  an  ethical 
cloak  around  the  logic  of  facts."  The  passage  in  Ezekiel,  xliv.  6  ff.,  forms  the 
point  of  departure  for  this  view.  But  while  Wellhausen  makes  it  teach  that 
Ezekiel  Jirst  made  the  distinction  in  question  in  the  Levitical  order,  others  hold 
that  the'propliet  in  this  and  other  passages  takes  the  distinction  for  granted,  and 
that  consequently  the  passage  proves  nothing,  or  rather  the  contrary  of  what  Well- 
hausen supposes.  (So  Dillmann,  p.  461  :  "Ezekiel,  in  xl.  45  f.,  xlii.  13,  xliii.  19, 
presupposes  such  a  distinction  as  a  matter  of  cours".  and  in  chap,  xliv.,  where  he 
expressly  speaks  concerning  it,  he  will  have,  according  to  v.  6  ff.,  the  original  order 
restored").  Against  this  whole  theory  of  the  post-Ezekiel  origin  of  the  Levitical 
legislation  in  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  comp.  especially  Delitzsch  in 
Riehm  :  "  That  the  legislation  in  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  is  not  of 
a  date  after  the  time  of  Ezekiel  follows  necessarily  from  the  fact  that  the  official 


-MG      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  94. 

position  and  division  of  the  Levites  after  the  exile  was  in  a  stage  of  develop- 
ment, which  is  not  reflected,  either  as  to  fact  or  language,  in  the  legislation." 
Indeed,  if  we  take  the  ground  that  the  tribe  of  Levi  constituted  the  order  of 
the  Levites,  we  can  scarcely  come  to  any  other  opinion  than  that  the  Levites 
were  not  all  priests.] 

§94. 
Official  Functions,  Dedication,  and  Social  Position  of  the  Levites. 

The  official  functions  of  the  Levites  are  placed  along  with  the  service  of  the 
priests  under  the  common  point  of  view  of  "keeping  the  charge  of  the  sanctuary" 
(tyipn  niOtJ'P)  (comp.  Num.  iii.  28,  33  with  xviii.  5),  but  at  the  same  time  they 
are  definitely  distinguished  from  the  latter.  The  charge  of  "all  concerns  of  the 
altar  (1)  and  within  the  veil"  (Num.  xviii.  7),  with  which,  also,  the  performance 
of  ceremonial  acts  connected  with  the  other  sacred  furniture  is  united,  falls  ex- 
clusively to  the  priests  (3).  On  the  contrary,  the  service  of  the  Levites  is  called 
the  service  of  iehoY&W ii  dwelling-pldce,  or  of  the  talernacle  of  meeting  (comp.  the 
different  expressions,  i.  53,  xvi.  9,  xviii.  4)  ;  it  is  designated  as  military  service 
(K3^),  iv.  3,  30,  viii.  24  (in  the  camp  of  Jehovah,  1  Chron.  ix.  19),  and  at  a  later 
period  it  was  still  organized  entirely  in  a  military  manner.  During  the  wander- 
ing in  the  wilderness,  the  Levites  had  the  charge  of  the  taking  down,  carrying, 
and  setting  up  of  the  holy  tabernacle  (Num.  i.  50  ff.)  ;  also  of  the  carrying  of  the 
sacred  furniture,  particularly  the  ark  of  the  covenant  (comp.  Deut.  x.  8,  xxxi.  25) 
(3).  The  division  of  these  duties  among  the  three  Levitical  families  is  given  in 
Num.  iii.  35-37,  chap.  iv.  According  to  chap.  iv.  3,  33,  30,  the  Levites  were 
called  to  this  service  from  their  thirtieth  to  their  fiftieth  year  ;  on  the  contrary, 
viii.  34  flf.  represents  their  time  of  service  as  beginning  as  early  as  with  their 
twenty-fifth  year  (4). — But  the  functions  mentioned  in  the  book  of  Numbers  refer 
only  to  the  time  of  the  people's  wandering.  There  are  no  directions  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch, or  even  in  Deuteronomy,  concerning  the  services  of  the  Levites  in  the 
future,  during  the  settlement  of  the  people  in  the  Holy  Land  (5).  How  entirely 
different  would  this  be  if  the  Levitical  legislation  of  the  Pentateuch  were  as  late 
a  production  as  the  modern  critics  maintain  !  (0). 

The  act  of  the  consecration  of  the  Levites  is  described  in  Num.  viii.  5-22.  The 
first  set  of  these  ceremonies  aims  at  purification,  "incp  (an  expression  which,  more- 
over, in  vers.  6  and  21,  stands  as  a  designation  of  the  whole  act  of  consecration, 
while,  on  the  contrary,  Ex.  xxviii.  41,  xxix.  1,  O^p  is  used  in  speaking  of  the  con- 
secration of  the  priests).  The  purification  falls  (ver.  7)  into  three  parts,— spj'ink- 
ling  with  the  water  of  purification  (nxon  'D)  ;  shaving  ("they  shall  cause  the 
razor  to  pass  over  their  whole  body")  ;  washing  of  their  clothes.  There  is  no  men- 
tion of  investiture,  as  at  the  dedication  of  the  priests,  for  the  Pentateuch  does 
not  recognize  any  special  official  costume  for  the  Levites  (such  as  appears  later). 
Thus  purified,  the  Levites  become  fitted  to  he  giren  to  Jehomh.  This  is  divided 
into  the  following  ceremonies: — The  laying  on  of  h,i)ids  (ver.  10).  When  the 
sacrifices  which  were  to  be  offered  afterward  had  l)een  prepared  (ver.  8),  the 
whole  congregation  was  to  gather  before  the  holy  tabernacle.  '•  Then  bring  the 
Levites  before  .Tehovah,  and  the  children  of  Israel  (namely,  the  representatives  of 


^^4.]  OFFICIAL   FUNCTIONS   OF   THE    LEVITES. 


207 


the  congregation)  shall  lay  their  hands  on  the  Levites."  By  this  action  the 
intention  of  the  people  to  present  the  Levites  as  an  offering  in  their  name  is  ex- 
pressed (§  126).  Tlic  actual  presentation  is  performed  by  imving  or  swinging 
(Hp^JJI,  comp.  §  133),  the  ceremony  which  takes  place  at  all  the  offerings  which 
God  relinquishes  as  a  gift  to  the  priest  (7).  In  the  case  of  the  Levites,  it  is  generally 
understood  as  a  simple  leading  backward  and  forward.  Then  the  sin-offering 
and  burnt-offering  are  presented  in  the  name  of  the  Levites  (who  must  therefore 
lay  their  hands,  ver.  12,  on  the  sacrificial  animals),  to  atone  for  them  O^il 
D':i'?n-S;!)  ;  for  even  those  whom  God  has  accepted  as  a  gift  must  be  atoned  for 
before  they  begin  to  serve  in  the  sanctuary  (8). 

In  order  that  the  tribe  of  Levi  might  be  withdrawn  from   ordinary  labor, 

which  in  the  theocratic  state  was  agricultural,— and  might  give  itself  completely 
to  its  sacred  vocation,  no  inheritance  as  a  tribe  was  assigned  to  it  (Num.  xviii,  23). 
What  Jehovah  said  to  Aaron  (Num.  xviii.  30)  is  in  Deut.  x.  9  applied  to  the 
whole  tribe  of  Levi— namely,  that  Jehovah  Himself  would  be  their  inheritance. 
The  tribe  is  scattered  among  all  the  other  tribes,  in  the  territories  of  which 
(Num.  XXXV.  6)  it  received  forty-eight  towns  (9),  with  their  suburbs  (ver.  7, 
D'^^'J^P),  that  is,  pasturages.  In  this  law,  moreover,  the  priests  are  included  along 
■with  the  Levites,  Tlie  thirteen  special  towns  for  the  priests  are  first  mentioned 
in  Josh.  xxi.  4(10).  Without  doubt,  this  dispersion  served  the  purpose  of  plac- 
ing the  Levites  in  a  position  where  they  could  watch  over  the  keeping  of  the  law. 
The  tithes  were  assigned  to  themybr  their  supiiort  (more  further  on,  §  136,  3). 
This  was  not  an  over-abundant  endowment.  Even  when  the  tithe  was  conscien- 
tiously paid,  it  was  no  certain  income  (and,  besides,  it  did  not  increase  with 
the  increase  of  the  tribe).  Moreover,  if  the  people  showed  themselves  averse  to 
this  tax  (as  was  to  be  expected  in  times  of  falling  away  from  the  theocratic  law), 
the  tribe  of  Levi  was  subjected  to  unavoidable  poverty.  And  thus  Deuteronomy 
represents  the  Levites  as  placed  in  a  position  requiring  the  support  of  alms,  and 
as  standing  in  the  same  line  with  strangers,  widows,  and  orphans  (xii.  19,  xiv.  27, 
29,  and  elsewhere)  (11). 

(1)  Viz.  both  the  altar  of  burnt  sacrifice  and  the  altar  of  incense,  comp.  1  Chron. 
vi.  34. 

(2)  The  attempt  of  the  Levite,  Korah,  to  offer  incense  is  punished  as  a  criminal 
offence.  Num.  xvi. 

(3)  The  ark,  however,  must  first  be  covered  by  the  priests.  Num.  iv.  4  ff.  ;  the 
sight  of  it  was  absolutely  forbidden  to  the  Levites,  ver.  17  ff. 

(4)  This  apparent  contradiction  is  most  easily  solved  by  the  assumption  that  the 
former  passages  refer  to  service  in  transporting  the  tabernacle,  and  the  latter  to 
Levitical  service  in  general  (comp.  Havernick's  Tntrwluction,  p.  432)  ;  on  another 
explanation  (comp.  Ranke,  Untersuchungen  ilber  den  Pentateuch,  ii.  p.  159),  tiie 
time  from  the  twenty-fiftli  to  the  thirtieth  year  is  to  be  regarded  mainly  as  a 
preparation  for  entering  on  the  full  service. — From  fifty  years  old  and  upvvaid 
the  Levites  are  not  to  be  compelled  to  do  the  work  of  serving,  but  only  to  helj) 
their  brethren  (probably  as  overseers,  or  by  instructing  the  younger  men). 

(5)  In  Deuteronomy  the  vocation  of  the  Levites,  as  has  been  already  indicated, 
is  included  under  the  priestly  calling  in  general  (x.  8,  xviii.  7).  but  this  without 
in  any  way  assigning  to  the  Levites  those  services  which  especially  belong  to  tho 
priests.  For  a  mixture  of  the  offices  of  the  two  classes  does  not  at  all  follow  fiom 
the  fact  that  the  priests,  xxxi.'  9,  and  also  the  Levites,  ver.  25,  are  designated  as 
bearers  of  the  ark  of  the  CQven^ut,     Subsequent  usage  (Josh,  iii.,  vi,  6  ;  1  Kings 


308      THE  CUVEXAXT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  94. 

viii.  3  ff.)  shows  that  the  ark  was  carried  by  the  priests  on  all  solemn  occasions  ; 
while,  on  the  contrary,  this  labor  was  incumbent  on  the  Levites  during  the  wan- 
dering in  the  wilderness  (so,  too,  in  2  Sam.  xv.  34). 

(6)"Riehm  is  very  far  from  having  made  out  his  point,  that  the  Deuteronomist, 
in  what  he  says  of  the  Levites,  assumes  a  state  of  tlungs  that  first  arose  after  the 
time  of  Hezekiah.  On  the  contrary,  as  will  appear  more  clearly  afterward, 
Stiilielin  ("  Versuch  einer  Geschichte  der  Verhiiltnisse  des  Stammes  Levi,"  in  the 
Zcitschr.  der  iJenUchen  morgenl.  Geselhch.  l«r)5,  p.  708  ff.)  is  probably  in  the  right 
when  he  finds  that  what  is  contained  in  Deuteronomy  in  reference  to  the  Levites 
entirely  harmonizes  with  the  time  after  Joshua. 

[It  is  not  unreasonable  to  demand  of  the  supporters  of  the  hypothesis  of  the 
post-exilic  origin  of  the  priestly  legislation,  that  they  point  out  a  design,  which 
shall  make  its  origin  intelligible.  In  the  law  concerning  the  Levitical  cities,  the 
impossibility  of  executing  which  in  that  age  is  manifest,  and  is  recognized  witiiout 
reserve  by  Wellhausen,  an  aim  may  indeed,  with  some  painstaking,  be  supposed 
to  be,  that  thereby  the  last  and  decisive  difference  was  got  rid  of,  which  distin- 
guished the  actual  tribes  from  the  Levites,  viz.,  the  tribal  independence  and  com- 
pactness which  were  indicated  by  fixed  settlements  (Wellhausen,  i.  p.  167).  The 
absurdity  of  such  legislation  he  endeavors  to  relieve  by  observing  that  "  the  exe- 
cution of  the  law  was  probably  postponed  till  the  time  of  the  Messiah."  But  the 
absurdity  of  making  laws  concerning  the  duties  of  the  Levites  in  the  wilderness 
for  the  age  of  the  second  temple  cannot  be  relieved  by  referring  them  to  the 
Messianic  age,  and  the  [supposed]  tendency  to  give  to  the  later  legislation  the 
"costume  of  the  Mosaic  age"  does  not  explain  satisfactorily  why  laws  should  be 
made  which  for  the  present  have  no  sense,  and  without  the  specific  form  which 
the  present  demanded.] 

(7)  See  Hofmann,  Schriftheweis,  ii.  p.  283. 

(8)  Special  provisions  for  the  personal  conduct  and  regulation  of  the  life  of 
Levites  (such  as  Lev.  xxi.  gives  for  the  priests)  are  not  contained  in  the  Levitical 
laws  in  the  Pentateuch. 

(0)  Of  -which,  six  are  appointed  to  be  cities  of  refuge  ;  comp.  infra,  the  aveng- 
ing of  blood,  §  108. 

(10)  The  list  in  1  Chron.  vi.  46  ff.  varies  in  many  ways  from  the  statement  in 
the  book  of  Joshua. — The  allotment  of  these  towns  is  doubtless  not  to  be  under- 
stood as  if  the  Levites  were  their  only  possessors,  but  that  they  received  only  the 
needful  number  of  houses,  along  with  the  siiburhs  uround  the  town  to  pasture 
their  cattle,  wiiile  the  other  houses,  and  the  fields  and  granges  belonging  to  each 
town,  were  occupied  by  the  members  of  the  trilx;  in  whose  land  the  town  lay 
(comp.  Josh.  xxi.  12,  and  Keil  on  the  passage).  ReftM'ence  has  also  been  made  in 
this  connection  with  good  reason  to  the  law  conccining  the  sale  of  Levites' 
houses,  Lev.  x.w.  32  f.,  since  this  has  a  meaning  only  on  the  presupposition  that 
other  Israelites  dwelt  with  the  Levites.  Accor'lingly  in  Bethshemesh,  1  Sam.  vi. 
13,  whicli  was  a  priests'  town.  Josh.  xxi.  16,  we  find  in  fact  at  a  later  period  in- 
habitants who  are  distinguished  from  the  D?1.7  who  were  in  it.  It  is  probable  that 
the  latter  expression  was  also  used  in  speaking  of  members  of  the  priestly  family 
when  they  were  not  really  installed  in  the  priest's  oflice  (see  Stahelin,  I.e.  p. 
713  f.). 

(11)  Riehm  (I.e.  p.  33  ff.)  says  that  Deuteronomy  distinctly  contradicts  the  pro- 
visions in  tile  l»ook  of  Numbers  concerning  the  dwelling-phices  of  the  Levites  by 
presupposing  a  houseless  tribe  of  Levites,  and  by  representing  the  Levites  as 
strangent  living  scattered  in  the  various  towns  of  the  various  tribes.  This  assertion 
is  at  first  sight  a  gross  exaggeration,  since,  with  the  exception  of  xviii.  6,  the 
Levites  tiiemselves  are  not  designated,  (is  strangers  in  any  of  the  passages  cited  by 
Riehm  (xii.  12,  18;  xiv.  27,  29  ;  xvi.  11,  14).  In  order  to  appreciate  the  state- 
ments in  Deuteronomy  rightly,  compare  also  what  is  siiid  on  the  situation  of  the 
Levites  as  it  was  from  the  beginning  of  the  time  of  the  judges  and  onward,  in  the 
historical  section  of  the  "  Tlicology  of  Pruphery." 


i   95.]  THE   PRIESTHOOD.  209 

2.  THE   PRIESTHOOD  (1). 

§95. 

It  appears  from  what  has  been  ah-eady  said  (§  02),  tliat  the  design  of  the  priestly 
vocatiun  is  in  the  first  place  essentially  to  represent  the  nation  as  a  holy  congregation 
'before  Jehovah^  with  full  divine  authority  (comp.  Deut.  xviii.  5),  and  to  open  up 
for  it  access  to  its  God  (2).  Standing  as  a  holy  order  between  Jehovah  and  the 
congregation  in  its  approach  to  Him,  the  priests  are  to  cover  the  latter  by  the  ho- 
liness of  their  office  (3),  which  ofiicial  holiness  (Num.  xviii.  1)  covers  also  the 
guilt  which  adheres  to  the  person  of  the  priest  himself  ;  and  in  the  functions  of 
his  office  the  priest  is  the  medium  of  the  intercourse  which  takes  place  in  worship 
between  Jehovah  and  the  congregation,  and  which,  on  account  of  the  sinful- 
ness of  the  congregation,  becomes  a  service  of  atonement.  The  name  |n3  (and 
"^F^,?)  probably  refers  to  this  priestly  calling.  The  stem  jH^  appears  to  be  con- 
nected with  |0  (as  iT}2  with  7=13,  IHO  with  "''O),  and  to  mean  either  intransitively, 
"to  present  oneself,"  or  transitively,  parare,  aptare ;  in  the  former  case,  JHJD 
would  be  one  who  stands  to  represent  another  (4),  and  in  the  latter  case  the  priest 
would  be  named  from  the  preparing  and  presenting  the  sacrifice  (5). — Besides  this 
mediatorial  calling,  the  priest  has  the  office  of  teacher  and  interp)r€ter  of  the  law, 
Lev.  X.  11,  in  which  respect  he  has  to  accomplish  a  divine  mission  to  the  people  ; 
hence  the  priest  is,  in  Mai.  ii.  7,  called  a  TWXV  '^>57p,  "  for  the  priest's  lips  should 
keep  knowledge,  and  men  should  seek  the  law  at  his  mouth."  As  it  is  said  in 
Ezek.  xliv.  23,  the  priest  shall  "  teach  my  people  the  difference  between  the  holy 
and  profane,  between  the  unclean  and  the  clean"  (comp.  Lev,  x.  10,  and  the 
functions  described  in  chap.  xiii.  f.,  Hag.  ii.  11  ff.)  ;  it  is  further  said  in  Ezekiel, 
ver.  24  :  "  And  in  controversy  they  shall  stand  in  judgment ;  they  shall  judge  ac- 
cording to  my  judgments"  (6).  The  two  sides  of  the  priestly  calling — to  teach 
Israel  Jehovah's  judgments  and  law,  and  to  offer  incense  and  sacrifice  on  His 
altar — are  embraced  together,    Deut.  xxxiii.  10. 

The  bearers  of  this  priestly  dignity  are,  as  has  already  been  remarked,  only  the 
Aaronites;  and  this  choice  of  Aaron's  house  is  re-confirmed  (Num.  xvi.)  in  con- 
sequence of  Eorah's  rebelhon,  and  certified  (Num.  xvii.)  by  the  sign  of  the  bud- 
ding almond-rod,  which  indicated  that  the  priesthood  does  not  rest  on  any  natural 
pre-eminence  whatever, — for  Aaron's  rod  had  originally  nothing  more  than  the 
others,— but  depends  only  on  the  divine  grace,  which  fills  this  office  with  living 
energy.  But  thenceforth  the  divine  calling  to  the  priesthood  is  connected  with  the 
natural  propagation  of  Aaron's  family  ;  and  as  Aaron's  two  sons,  Nadab  and  Abihu, 
died  because  they  offered  strange  fire  (Lev.  x.  1  f.),  and  left  no  sons,  it  passed  to 
the  race  of  the  other  two  sons  of  Aaron,  Eleazar  and  Ithamar  (7). 

The  holiness  of  the  priesthood  was  to  be  reflected  in  the  whole  appearance  of 
the  priests,  which  was  to  suggest  the  highest  purity  and  exclusive  devotion  to 
God.  To  this  refer,  in  the  first  place,  the  provisions  as  to  the  hodily  condition  and 
regulation  of  life  of  the  priests.  The  law  treats  of  the  bodily  condition  of  the 
priests  in  Lev.  xxi.  16-24.  It  declares  that  all  considerable  physical  blemishes 
render  a  man  unfit  for  the  priest's  office.     But  though  excluded  from  service,   a 


210      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  95. 

person  ufflicted  with  such  blemishes  might  (ver.  22j  enjoy  the  sacred  gifts  given 
for  the  support  of  the  priests  (as  well  of  the  first  as  of  the  second  order)  (8).  Tlie 
provisions  for  the  regulation  of  the  life  are  given  in  Lev.  xxi.  1  ff.  In  it  we 
are  told  that  the  priest  shall  not  defile  himself  with  any  dead  body,  by  taking 
charge  of  the  funeral  and  sharing  in  the  customs  of  mourning,  except  in  the  case 
of  his  nearest  Mood  relatives,  viz.,  his  father,  mother,  son,  daughter,  brother, 
and  his  sister  if  she  be  still  a  virgin.  The  same  six  cases  are  named  in  Ezek. 
xliv.  25  (9).  But  even  in  these  cases  he  must  avoid  every  disfigurement  of  his 
body.  With  regard  to  marriage,  the  law  (Lev.  xxi.  7  ff.)  commands  that  he 
shall  not  marry  a  harlot,  or  one  who  has  been  deflowered  or  divorced,  but  only  a 
virgin  or  a  widow  ;  which  in  Ezek.  xliv.  22  is  limited  to  "  virgins  of  the  seed  of 
Israel,  or  a  widow  of  a  priest"  (10).  Propriety  and  order  must  rule  in  the  priest's 
family.  If  a  priest's  daughter  give  herself  up  to  lewdness,  she  shall  (Lev.  xxi.  9) 
be  burned  (without  doubt  after  being  stoned).  The  dietetic  directions  which  the  law 
lays  down  for  the  priests,  are  simply  that  they  must  avoid  the  use  of  wine  and 
other  intoxicating  liquors  at  the  time  of  their  service  in  the  sanctuary.  Lev.  x.  9 
f.,  in  order  to  preserve  entire  clearness  of  mind  for  their  functions  ;  and  further, 
that  the  general  prohibition  to  defile  oneself  by  partaking  of  what  has  died 
of  itself,  or  been  torn  by  beasts,  is. specially  inculcated  on  them,  xxii.  8.  If  a 
priest  had  levitically  defiled  himself,  involuntarily,  or  in  an  unavoidable  way, 
he  might  not  eat  of  the  holy  food  until  he  was  legally  cleansed  again.  Every 
offence  against  this  rule  was  threatened  with  death,  xxii.  2  ff.  There  is  no 
prescription  in  the  law  as  to  the  age  required  for  entering  on  the  priestly  office. 
It  is  to  be  supposed  that  the  rule  concerning  the  age  of  the  Levites  held  good  of 
the  priests  also. 

The  consecration  of  the  priests,  for  which,  as  has  already  been  mentioned,  the 
expression  l^'Hp  (Ex.  xxix.  1,  xl.  13)  is  used,  is  prescribed  in  Ex.  xxix.  1-37, 
xl.  12-15,  and  is  mentioned  in  Lev.  viii.  as  performed  in  the  case  of  Aaron  and 
his  sons.  The  consecration  of  the  priests  consists  of  two  classes  of  acts  :^1. 
Washing,  robing,  and  anointing  ;  which  three  acts  form  the  real  consecration 
of  the  person  to  the  priestly  oflnice  ;  3.  a  threefold  offering,  by  which  the  persons 
thus  consecrated  were  put  into  all  the  functions  and  rights  of  the  priesthood. 
The  consecration  began  by  leading  those  who  were  to  be  consecrated  to  the  door 
of  the  tabernacle,  and  washing  them — doubtless  their  whole  body,  and  not  merely 
their  hands  and  feet.  The  putting  off  of  the  uncieanness  of  the  body  is  a  symbol 
of  spiritual  cleansing,  without  which  no  one  may  approach  God,  and  least  of  all 
he  who  conducts  the  ceremonies  of  atonement.  This  negative  preparation  was 
followed  by  the  rohing,  which,  with  the  common  priests,  consists  in  putting  on 
four  articles  of  dress, — breeches,  coat,  bonnet,  and  girdle  ;  comp.  Ex.  xxviii.  40- 
42  (11).  The  clothes  were  made  of  fine,  shining  white  linen,  as  the  symbol  of 
purity  ;  only  the  girdle  was  embroidered  with  bright  colors  (woollen  garments 
were  forbidden).  In  the  service  shoes  were  not  to  be  worn.  Then  followed  the 
priestly  anointing,  a  symbol  of  the  communication  of  the  Divine  Spirit  which 
operates  in  the  priestly  ofSce  (12).  The  olive  oil  employed  was  mixed  with  four 
sweet-smelling  substances.  According  to  tradition,  we  are  to  think  of  it  as 
applied  only  to  the  forehead,  in  distinction  from  the  unction  of  the  high  priest. 
This   anointing  was   (Ex.   xl.    15)   to   serve   Aaron's    sons   "  for   an    everlasting 


§    95.]  THE    PRIESTHOOD.  211 

priesthood  throughout  their  generations  ;"  and  this  has  often  been  understood 
as  if  this  anointing  had  not  to  be  repeated  afterward  in  the  case  of  common 
priests. 

The  offering  which  followed,  and  which  of  course  was  not  performed  by  those 
to  be  consecrated,  but  by  Moses,  comprised  a  threefold  sacrifice.  First,  priests  and 
altar  are  purified.  Lev.  viii.  15,  by  the  sin-offering  of  a  young  bullock  ;  then  the 
offering  of  the  purified  priests  to  God  is  completed  by  the  burnt-offering  of  a 
ram  (13).  Thirdly,  this  is  followed  by  a  modified  thank-offering  (14).  This  is 
the  specific  sacrifice  for  the  consecration  of  the  priests,  and  bears  the  name 
D'X^p,  "filling,''  Lev.  viii.  22,  28  (vii.  37), — an  expression  which  is  to  be  ex- 
plained by  the  phrase  "  filling  the  hand,''''  and  which  refers  to  the  conveyance  of 
authority  to  the  priest  (15).  Not  only  is  the  altar  sprinkled  with  the  blood  of 
the  sacrificed  ram,  as  at  other  thank-offerings,  but  also  the  right  ear,  the  right 
thumb,  and  the  great  toe  of  the  right  foot  of  Aaron  and  his  sons  are  touched  with 
it :  the  ear,  because  the  priest  must  at  all  times  hearken  to  the  holy  voice  of  God  ; 
the  hand,  because  he  must  execute  God's  commands,  and  especially  the  priestly 
functions  ;  the  foot,  because  he  must  walk  rightly  and  holily.  Further,  it  is  pe- 
culiar to  this  offering  that  Moses  takes  the  fat  pieces,  the  right  shoulder  of  the 
ram,  and  some  of  the  three  different  kinds  of  cakes  belonging  to  the  thank-offer- 
ing, and  lays  all  these  together  in  the  hands  of  Aaron  and  his  sons,  and  waves 
them  before  Jehovah,  after  which  all  is  burned.  This  act  signifies,  first,  the  con- 
veyance of  the  function  which  belongs  to  the  priest  to  offer  the  fat  pieces  on  God's 
altar  ;  secondly,  the  investiture  of  the  priest  with  the  gifts,  which  they  receive 
in  future  for  their  service,  but  which  they  must  now  give  over  to  Jehovah,  be- 
cause they  are  not  yet  fully  consecrated,  and  therefore  cannot  yet  themselves  act 
as  priests  (16).  The  conclusion  of  the  festival  is  the  sacrificial  meal.  The  dura- 
tion of  the  consecration  is  fixed  at  seven  days  (Ex.  xxix.  15  ff.  ;  Lev.  viii.  33  ff.). 
(During  this  whole  time,  those  who  are  to  be  consecrated  were  to  stay,  day  and 
night,  in  the  outer  court,  at  the  entrance  of  the  tabernacle.)  On  each  of  the  six 
following  days  a  repetition  of  the  sin-offering  was  to  take  place  (Ex.  xxix.  36)  ; 
it  is  not  said  whether  the  other  two  offerings  and  the  anointing  were  to  be  repeated 
or  not.  (Still  the  repetition  of  these  offerings  is  probable  ;  for  the  daily  filling 
of  the  hands  prescribed  in  Ex.  xxix.  35,  Lev.  viii.  33,  took  place  through  the 
offering  of  consecration  at  which  the  burnt-offering  was  presupposed.)— 
The  meaning  of  all  these  (SiKaMfiara  aapnog,  these  outward  priestly  regula- 
tions, and  the  aim  of  these  teachings,  is  distinctly  expressed  by  the  Old 
Testament  itself  in  Dent,  xxxiii.  9  f.  :  "  Who  said  unto  his  father  and  to  his 
mother,  I  have  not  seen  him  ;  neither  did  he  acknowledge  his  brethren,  nor  knew 
his  own  children  ;  for  they  have  observed  Thy  word,  and  kept  Thy  covenant. 
They  shall  teach  Jacob  Thy  judgments,  and  Israel  Thy  law  ;  they  shall  put  in- 
cense before  Thee,  and  whole  burnt  sacrifice  upon  Thine  altar."  The  priesthood, 
indeed,  as  such,  is  linked  to  birthright,  and  the  priestly  service  demands  only 
outward  purity  and  perfection  ;  but  that  the  real  subjective  qualification  for  the 
priesthood  lies  in  undivided  devotion  to  God,  which,  when  His  honor  is  in  ques- 
tion, is  willing  to  sacrifice  even  the  highest  worldly  interest,  is  distinctly  express- 
ed both  here  and  in  the  calling  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  Ex.  xxxii.  26  ff.  (comp. 
§  29  with  note  2).     Unbroken  obedience  is  demanded  of  the  priest,  Lev.  x.  3  :  "  I 


213      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITii  ISRAKL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  95. 

will  be  sanctified  in  them  that  come  nigh  me  C^"^!?,  designation  of  the  priests), 
and  before  all  the  people  I  will  be  honored  "  (comp.  Mai.  ii.  5  if.)  (17). 

The  maintenance  of  the  priests  was  cared  for  in  the  following  manner  -.—They 
received  as  dwelling-places  thirteen  of  the  towns  which  were  given  to  the  Levites, 
Josh.  xxi.  4,  10  ff.  (compare  the  enumeration  in  1  Chron.  vi.  39  ff.,  which,  how- 
ever, is  not  free  from  corruptions  of  text)  ;  further — compare  Num.  xviii.  8  flf., 
the  chief  passage — the  Levites  had  to  give  them  the  tithes  of  their  tithes  (18), 
and  they  received  the  gifts  of  the  first-fruits,  and  certain  parts  of  the  offerings, 
etc.  (19).  Thus  the  maintenance  of  the  priests  was  cared  for  sufficiently,  but  by 
no  means  abundantly  ;  in  comparison  with  the  endowments  of  the  priestly  caste 
in  many  other  ancient  nations,  the  provision  for  the  Levitical  priests  is  very 
moderate. — The  deeper  meaning  of  the  declaration,  that  Jehovah  alone  is  the 
portion  and  inheritance  of  the  priests,  Num.  xviii.  20  (30),  and  what,  therefore, 
ought  to  be  the  deepest  ground  of  priestly  thou2;ht  and  life,  is  expressed,  Ps.  xvi. 
5,  in  these  words  :  "  The  Lord  is  the  portion  of  mine  inheritance  and  of  my  cup  ; 
Thou  maintainest  my  lot.     The  lines  are  fallen  unto  me  in  pleasant  places,"  etc. 

(1)  Compare  Kiiper,  Das  Priesterthum  des  A.  Bu?ides,  18G6.  and  my  article, 
"  Priesterthum  im  A.  T.,"  in  Herzog's  i2.  E.  xii.  [also  Richm's  art.  "  Priester" 
in  his  Handworterhuch. 

(2)  Mediatorship  between  God  and  the  people  is  generally  said  to  constitute  the 
essence  of  the  priesthood  ;  and  this  is,  generally  speaking,  correct,  but  it  is  not 
an  adequate  expression  of  the  specific  business  of  the  priesthood  in  distinction 
from  the  two  other  theocratic  offices.  Mediatorial  vocation  belongs  also  to  the 
king  and  the  prophet:  to  the  king,  because  he  acts  in  the  name  of  Jehovah,  and 
exercises  judicial  and  executive  authority  in  God's  state  as  one  invested  with  His 
power ;  to  the  prophet,  because  he  sj)eaJcs  in  Jehovah's  name,  and  opens  up  the 
divine  counsel  to  the  people. 

(3)  A  meaning  of  the  priesthood  which  appears  also  in  the  place  assigned  to 
Aaron  and  his  sons  in  the  camp,  immediately  in  front  of  the  sanctuary  (Num.  iii. 
38). 

(4)  As,  according  to  Firuzabadi  (see  Gesenius,  Thesaurus,  ii.  p.  661),  kahinun 
means  one,  "qui  surgit  in  alieno  negotio  et  operam  dat  in  causa  ejus."  Comp. 
Delitzsch  on  Ps.  ex.,  4. 

(5)  Kaha/ia,  in  Arabic,  is  chiefly  used  of  soothsaying,  but  it  is  clear  that  this 
meaning  is  a  derived  one.  On  the  D'^r?^,  who  are  found  among  the  king's  officers, 
see  my  article,  "  Konige,  Konigthum  in  Israel,"  in  Herzog's  jR.E. 

(6)  Comp.  Deut.  xvii.  9  ff.  See  tlie  judicial  functions  of  the  priesthood, 
infra. — On  its  second  side,  also,  the  priestly  vocation  is  distinguished  from  that 
of  the  prophets  by  the  fact  tliat  the  pv\o<t  is  bound  solely  to  the  interpretation 
and  practice  of  the  law,  and  does  not  receive  in  the  spirit  any  further  knowl- 
edge of  the  divine  counsels  ;  to  which  t!ie  Urim  and  the  Tlnimmim  of  the  high 
priest  alone  form  an  exception,  if,  as  some  have  supposed,  he  thereby  was  made 
acquainted  by  inspiration  with  divine  decisions.  Note  how  Jer.  xviii.' 18  ascribes 
law  to  the  priests,  counsel  to  the  wise,  word  to  the  projjhets  ;  or  Ezek.  vii.  26,  law 
to  the  priests,  counsel  to  the  elders,  vision  to  the  prophets. 

(7)  While  the  prophet,  the  servant  of  Jehovah  ("1?;'),  discharges  his  oflBce  in 
virtue  of  a  free  divine  call,  which  is  not  confined  to  any  tribe,  and  in  virtue  of 
his  personal  endowment  by  the  Divine  Spirit,  Vne  priest,  the  rninister  (^T^rz)  of 
Jehovah,  must  prove  his  personal  rii^ht  to  office  by  his  genealogy,  although  a 
vital  divine  pow(>r  also  works  in  his  ofiice.  Want  of  proof  of  descent  from 
Aaron  excluded  from  the  priesthood  ;  an  example  of  which  is  recorded  in  Ezra 
ii._G2,  Neh.  vii.  04  (comp.  Josephus,  c.  Ap.  i.  7).  [That  the  later  Jerusalem 
priesthood  was  descended  from  the  family  of  Aaron  is  controverted  by  Well- 


§    95.  J  THE    I'llIESTlIOOD.  213 

hausen,  i.  p.  128  f.,  who  appeals  to  1  Sam.  ii.  37  ff.,  as  showing  that  Eli's  house 
and  father's  house,  and  conse(]uently  the  family  chosen  at  the  establishment  of 
the  theocracy,  was  displaced  for  another,  namely,  the  family  of  Zadok  (1  K.  ii. 
27),  which  therefore  was  not  legitimated  by  descent.  But  in  the  antiquity  of  the 
expression  "  father's  house"  it  cannot  be  said  in  v.  31  to  indicate  necessarily  the 
entire  posterity  of  the  father  of  the  stock,  who  was  chosen  at  the  establishment 
of  the  theocracy  (Comp.  Dillniann,  Commentar  zu  Ex.  und  Lev.,  p.  460  and  58  ;  see 
also  §  101)  ;  and  if  the  passage  is,  as  W.  assumes,  post-Deuteronomic,  it  cannot  be 
understood,  as  Bredenkamp  has  shown,  p.  181,  as  the  former  understands  it  ;  for 
"  to  maintain  that  the  Zadokites  or  priests  of  the  teinple,  could  have  been  called 
in  that  age  upstarts,  sprung  from  a  line  not  Mosaically  sanctioned,  would  be  to 
annihilate  their  authority."] 

(8)  It  is  scarcely  needful  to  remark,  that  not  all  Aaronites,  even  when  possessed 
of  the  qualifications  required  by  the  law,  were  really  priests  in  office  ;  thus 
Benaiah,  military  commandant  under  David  and  Solomon  (2  Sam.  viii.  18,  xx. 
23  ;  1  Kings  ii.  25),  was,  1  Chron.  xxvii.  5,  a  priest's  son. 

(9)  Comp.,  too,  Philo,  de  Monarch.  §  12.  [What  is  required  of  him  at  the 
death  of  his  wife  cannot  be  determined  with  certainty  either  from  Lev.  xxi.  4, 
or  from  Ezek.  xxiv.  16  ff.     Comp.  Dillmann  on  Lev.  xxi.  4.] 

(10)  The  latter  limitation  has  only  a  prophetic  character  (s.  Wagenseil,  Sota, 
p.  557  f.),  while  the  former  is  without  doubt  in  the  sense  of  the  law,  and  is  fol- 
lowed, Ezra  x.  18  f.,  Neh.  xiii.  28  ff. 

(11)  In  1  Sam.  xxii.  18,  even  the  common  priests  wore  an  ephod,  but  of  in- 
ferior material  C?). 

(12)  Certainly  Ex.  xxix.  7,  Lev.  viii.  12,  speak  only  of  the  anointing  of  Aaron  ; 
but  Ex.  xxvii.  41,  xxx.  30,  xl.  15,  Lev.  vii.  35  f.,  x.  7,  refer  distinctly  to  the 
anointing  of  Aaron's  sons. 

(13  and  14)  Comp.,  further  on,  tiie  description  of  the  sacrificial  worship,  §  131  ff. 

(15)  The  phrase  'i3  'y''_-T\^  X^D  (Ex.  xxviii.  41,  xxix.  9,  29,  33  ;  Lev.  viii.  33, 
xvi.  32  ;  Num.  iii.  3  ;  comp.  Judg.  xvii.  5)  does  not  indicate  the  bestowal  of 
a  gift  on  the  priest  by  Jehovah,  but  a  conferring  or  delivering  over  of  the  rights 
of  office,  authorization  (comp.  Isa.  xxii.  21).  On  the  contrary,  if  one  fills  his 
hand  to  Jehovah  (1  Chron.  xxix.  5;  2  Chron.  xxix.  31;  comp.  Ex.  xxxii.  29), 
this  means,  providing  oneself  with  something  to  offer  to  Jehovah.  [That  the  ex- 
pression, as  Wellhausen,  i.  p.  132  f.,  deems  probable,  signified  originally  a  filling 
of  the  hand  with  gold,  and  so  refers  to  a  paid  priesthood  in  the  older  time,  does 
not  follow  from  Judges  xvii.] 

(16)  The  breast,  which  was  given  to  Jehovah  at  the  common  thank-offerings 
by  waving  it,  but  then  relinquished  by  Him  totlie  priest,  falls  in  the  present  case 
to  the  share  of  Moses,  as  acting  in  the  character  of  priest. — Lastly,  Moses  sprinkled 
the  priests  and  their  garments  with  a  mixture  of  anointing  oil  and  blood  of  the 
sacrifice  (Lev.  viii.  30  ;  on  the  contrary,  Ex.  xxix.  21  represents  this  act  as  tak- 
ing place  immediately  after  the  sprinkling  of  the  altar). 

(17)  The  official  functiom  of  the  priests,  in  distinction  from  those  of  the  Levites, 
Num.  xviii.  3,  are'briefly  designated  by  "  coming  near  to  the  vessels  of  the  sanct- 
uary and  the  altar."  Their  functions  in  the  holy  place  were— lighting  the  incense 
on  the  golden  altar  every  morning  and  evening,  cleaning  and  taking  charge  of 
the  lamps  and  lighting  them  toward  the  evening,  arranging  the  shewbread  on  the 
Sabbath  ;  in  the  court— keeping  up  the  continual  fire  on  the  altar  of  burnt-offering, 
removing  the  ashes  from  the  altar,  presenting  the  morning  and  evening  sacrifice 
(Lev.  vi.  1  ff.),  pronouncing  the  blessing  on  the  people  after  the  completion  of 
the  daily  sacrifice  (Num.  vi.  23-27),  waving  the  pieces  of  the  sacrifices,  sprink- 
ling of  blood,  and  laying  upon  the  altar  and  kindling  all  the  parts  which  were 
offered.  It  was  also,  Num.  x.  8-10,  xxxi.  6,  the  priest's  duty  to  blow  the  sil- 
ver trumpets  at  festivals  and  sacrificial  ceremonials  as  well  as  in  campaigns  (comp. 
2  Chron.  xiii.  12).  See  in  the  discussion  of  the  new^-moon  Sabbath,  §  150,  the 
meaning  of  the  trumpet-blast,  in  virtue  of  which  the  blowing  of  the  trumpets 
forms  a  part  of  the  priestly  intercession. 


214      THE  COVRN^ANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  90. 

(18)  Thus  on  the  one  luuid,  the  higher  position  of  the  priests  over  tlie  Levites 
is  expressed  ;  und  on  tlie  other  hiind,  an  essential  portion  of  the  priests'  support 
is  made  dependent  on  the  conscientiousness  of  the  Levites. 

(19)  See  the  particuUirs  in  the  above-cited  article,  p.  180  it.,  and  comji^re, 
further  on.  the  discussion  of  the  sacrificial  ritual  and  the  theocratic  taxes.      _ 

(20)  In  Num.  xviii.  20,  "Thou  shalt  have  no  inheritance  in  their  land,  neither 
Shalt  thou  have  any  part  amont--  them  :  I  am  tliy  part  and  thine  inheritance 
among  the  children  of  Israel,"  was  said  to  Aaron  ;  comp.  Dent.  x.  9,  xviu.  1  f. 
(Ezek.  xliv.  28). 

3.    THE   HIGH   PRIEST    (1). 

§  96. 

The  name  of  the  Idgh  priest  is  ^njn  jniin,  Num.  xxxv.  28,  or  H^K/rsn  jnin, 
Lev.  iv.  3,  5,  16  ;  the  most  complete  expression  is  in  xxi.  10,  "The  priest  who 
is  higher  than  his  brethren,  upon  whose  head  the  anointing  oil  was  poured  ;"  he 
is  also  called  the  priest  by  way  of  distinction,  e.g.  Deut.  xvii.  12  (2).  In  the 
high-priesthood  are  united  the  mediatorship  by  which  the  people  are  represented 
before  God,  and  the  official  priestly  sanctity  by  which  they  are  reconciled.  If 
God  in  the  blood  of  an  offering  accepts  tlie  life  of  a  dean  animal  by  which  the 
people's  sin  and  uncleanness  is  covered  (according  to  the  original  meaning  of 
"133),  in  the  high-priesthood,  on  the  contrary,  a  man  is  elected  and  sanctified  by 
God  that  he  may  in  virtue  of  his  holiness  appear  before  Him  for  the  peo^ile,  and, 
as  is  said  in  the  important  passage  Ex.  xxviii.  38,  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  holy 
things  {i.e.  atone  for  the  holy  things  regarded  as  in  a  state  not  accepted  of 
God]  which  the  children  of  Israel  hallow  in  all  their  holy  gifts,  that  they  may  be 
accepted  before  Jehovah.  Thus  the  whole  reconciling  and  sanctifying  effect  of  the 
sacrifices  is  dependent  on  the  existence  of  a  personally  reconciling  mediatorship 
before  God  (3)  ;  and  here  the  old  covenant  proclaims  its  inadequacy  to  effect  a 
true  reconciliation,  in  the  fact  that  even  the  high  priest  himself,  through  whose 
intercession  the  defect  which  attaches  to  the  offering  is  made  good,  himself  in 
turn  has  need  of  reconciliation  and  purification  by  the  blood  of  sacrifices,  as  one 
subject  to  sin  and  weakness  (comp.  Heb.  v.  3).  As  the  representative  of  the 
whole  nation,  the  high  priest  bears  on  his  shoulder  and  on  his  heart  the  names  of 
the  tribes  of  the  people,  Ex.  xxviii.  12,  29.  (Particulars  on  this  passage  below.) 
The  same  expiatory  sacrifice  is  demanded  for  his  person  as  for  all  the  people, 
because  he  unites  in  his  person  the  significance  of  the  whole  people  (4)  (comp.  the 
ritual  of  sacrifice).  When  he  in  whose  person  the  people  stand  before  Jehovah 
commits  an  error,  this,  as  is  said  in  Lev.  iv.  3,  operates  Dl^H  r\',yd\^  [so  as  to 
bring  guilt  on  the  people]  ;  that  is,  it  causes  a  disturbance  of  the  theocratic  order, 
which  requires  to  be  atoned  for,  and  is  imputed  to  the  whole  people.  When, 
on  the  contrary,  God  acknowledges  a  high  priest  as  well-pleasing  in  His  sight, 
this  is  a  declaration  in  fact  that  He  graciously  accepts  the  whole  people  (5). 

This  significance  of  the  high  priest,  in  virtue  of  which  he  is  the  Hirr;  t^np  «.  jf. 
(comp.  Ps.  cvi.  16),  must  be  stamped  on  his  whole  appearance,  which  is  to 
awaken  to  a  still  higher  degree  than  that  of  the  common  priests,  an  impression 
of  the  highest  purity  and  of  exclusive  devotion  to  God.  To  this  end  are  directed, 
in  the  first  place,  the  regulations  in  regard  to  his  personal  condition  and  mode  of 


§    ^C.]  THE    HIGH    PRIEST.  215 

life.  In  respect  to  descent  and  bodily  constitution,  the  law  prescribes  nothing 
in  which  the  high  priest  is  to  be  different  from  the  other  priests  (comp.  §  95). 
On  the  other  hand,  the  rules  in  Lev.  xxi.  10-15,  in  regard  to  the  ordering  of  his 
life,  relate  exclusively  to  the  high  priest.  According  to  these,  he  who  specially 
reflects  the  whole  fulness  of  a  holy  life  must  have  no  polluting  fellowship  with 
death,  and  not  even  come  in  contact  (ver.  11)  with  the  corpses  of  his  parents  ; 
his  priestly  administration  in  the  sanctuary  may  not  be  interrupted  by  any  con- 
sideration whatever  of  the  bonds  of  nature,  otherwise  regarded  as  most  holy. 
Even  every  sign  of  mourning  is  denied  him  (6).  With  regard  to  the  marriage  of 
the  high  priest,  the  prohibition  to  marry  a  widow  is  added  to  the  marriage  re- 
strictions relating  to  the  common  priests.  lie  must  marry  a  pure  virgin  (ver. 
13  f.). 

Further,  the  high  priest's  consecration  to  Ids  office  differed  from  that  of  the 
common  priests  (comp.  §  95)  with  reference  to  the  robing  and  anointing.  On  the 
former,  see  Ex.  xxix.  5-9,  Num.  xx.  26-28  (7).  Without  the  ornaments  of  his 
order,  the  high  priest  is  simply  a  private  individual,  who,  as  such,  cannot  inter- 
cede for  the  people  ;  therefore  he  is  threatened  with  death  if  he  appear  before 
Jehovah  without  them.  The  description  of  the  high  priest's  official  garments  is 
given  in  Ex.  xxviii.  and  xxxix.,  with  which  Sir.  xlv.  8-13  ;  Josephus,  Ant.  iii.  7. 
4  ff..  Bell.  Jud.  v.  5.  7,  are  to  be  compared  (8).  Over  the  ordinary  priest's  dress 
the  high  priest  wore,  first,  the  ^'>!3  (LXX  ■rrodi/pijo),  a  woven  upper  dress  of  blue 
cotton,  which  is  to  be  supposed,  from  the  description  we  have  of  it,  to  be  not  in  the 
style  of  a  mantle,  but  a  close  dress,  with  a  laced  opening  for  the  neck  and  (accord- 
ing to  Josephus  and  the  Rabbins)  armholes  (not  sleeves),  so  that  the  white  sleeves 
of  the  under  dress  were  seen.  It  was  trimmed  on  the  under  hem  with  a  fiinge,  on 
which  were  alternately  jDomegranates  of  cotton  and  golden  bells  ;  Rabbinical  tra- 
dition says  there  were  seventy-two  of  the  latter.  These  served  to  signal  to  the 
people  gathered  in  the  court  the  entrance  and  performances  of  the  high  priest,  Ex. 
xxviii.  35  ;  they  could  thus  follow  him  with  their  thoughts  and  prayers  (9). 
Over  the  Mei'l  was  the  ephod,  "llSt?,  and  to  this  the  breastplate,  f^n,  with  the 
Urim  and  the  Thummim,  was  fastened  by  chains  and  libbons.  The  covering  of 
the  head  was  a  mitre,  r\?^vp.  On  the  front  of  it  was  a  plate  of  gold,  ]*'V,  called 
in  Ex.  xxix.  6  "^U,  that  is,  a  diadem,  with  the  inscription  mn'7  i^lp.  For  his 
duties  on  the  yearly  day  of  atonement  another  dress  of  office,  made  of  white  linen, 
was  prescribed  (comp.  infra,  §  140,  on  the  day  of  atonement). 

This  dress  of  office  has  received  very  various  symbolic  interpretations.  These 
go  back  even  to  Philo,  de  Monarch,  ii.  5  f.,  who  referred  it  to  cosmical  relations, 
in  conformity  with  his  view  of  the  Mosaic  worship.  Among  more  modern  writers, 
Bahr  {SymloUh,  ii.  p.  97  ff.)  has  entered  into  the  particulars  of  the  matter.  Pro- 
ceeding from  the  position  that  the  high  priest,  as  mediator  of  the  theocratic 
people,  unites  in  himself  its  three  theocratic  dignities  (comp.  Pirke  Aboth  iv.  13), — 
that  of  the  priesthood,  the  law,  and  kingship, — he  finds  that  those  garments  of 
the  high  priest  which  he  had  in  common  with  the  other  priests  express  the 
priestly  character  ;  the  Meil,  that  of  the  covenant  ;  the  ejihod  and  hhoshen,  that 
of  a  king.  But  the  whole  assumption  on  which  this  interpretation  rests  is  incor- 
rect. The  Old  Testament  knows  nothing  of  a  royal  dignity,  for  the  present,  be- 
longing to  the  high  priest  :  it  awaits  the  union  of  the  two  dignities  in  the  Messiah 


21G      THE  COVKXANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.     f§  9(5. 

(Ps  ex  4  •  Zcch  vi.  i;5).  Even  for  the  high  priest,  only  the  tico  sides  of  the 
priestly  calling  appear  (comp.  Deut.  xxxiii.  10)  which  were  treated  of  in  §  95  ; 
and  so  also,  in  Sir.  xlv.  IG  f.,  a  twofold  office  is  ascribed  to  the  high  pnest,-the 
i^tUcKecdaL  ^epl  rov  laov  by  sacrifice,  and  the  k^ovaia  h  dta&jKatQ  Kpi^aro^v  StSa^ai 
rov  'luKco^  ra  f^aprvpca,  K.r.A.  (to  have  power  over  the  ordinances  of  justice,  that 
lie  mav  teach  Jacob  tlie  precepts,  and  enlighten  Israel  in  His  law).  Thus  the 
hi-h  priest's  dress  can  have  a  symbolic  meaning  only  in  the  two  directions  which 
ha°ve  been  mentioned,  and  this  is  unmistakably  proved  in  its  mam  part,  the 
ephod  and  the  breastplate  (10).  The  power  to  give  divine  decisions  to  the  people 
is  expressed  in  the  Urim  and  the  Thummira  (on  these  see  §  97).  The  reference 
to  the  reconciling  mediatorship,  as  has  already  been  indicated,  is  especially 
marked  by  the  fact  that  the  high  priest,  when  clothed  with  the  ephod,  bears  the 
names  of  the  twelve  tribes  on  his  heart  and  shoulders.  As  the  heart  (comp.  §  71) 
is  the  focus  of  the  personal  life,  bearing  them  on  the  heart  denotes  personal  inter- 
penetration  of  his  life  and  theirs,  in  virtue  of  which  the  high  priest  has  the  most 
lively  sympathy  with  those  for  whom  he  intercedes  (11).  Thivt  the  ephod  is 
essentially  a  shoulder--p\ece  (LXX  tTru^uig)  does  not  make  it  a  symbol  of  kingly 
power  ;  what,  generally  speaking,  lies  in  this,  is  only  that  the  dignity  of  office 
rests  on  Mm.  When  it  is  said  in  Ex.  xxviii.  12  that  the  names  of  the  twelve  tribes 
were  engraved  on  the  onyx-stones  by  means  of  which  the  shoulder-pieces  were 
fastened  together,  this  certainly  does  not  denote  (as  v.  Gerlach  also  explains  the 
passage)  that  the  high  priest  is  the  people's  regent,  but  it  is  meant  to  signify  that 
He  as  Mediator,  carries,  as  it  were,  the  people  to  God— that,  so  to  speak,  the 
people  (comp.  the  term  in  Num.  xi.  11)  lie  as  a  burden  on  him. 

The  robing  of  the  high  priest  is  followed  by  his  unction.  The  peculiarity  of 
the  unction  of  the  high  priest  is  designated  by  the  expression  t^^^-ll\  p:^'  (Ex. 
xxix.  7  ;  Lev.  viii.  12.,  xxi.  10),  which  implies  that  the  anointing  oil  is  poured 
on  him  in  rich  abundance  (comp.  Ps.  cxxxiii.  2).  From  his  unction,  the  high 
priest  was  called  (as  remarked  above)  k.  t^.,  "the  anointed  priest." 

Lastly,  with  reference  to  the  high  ^mesfs  functions,  it  is  first  to  be  noted  that  all 
the  functions  of  the  common  priests  fell  also  on  him.  The  law  does  not  distinguish 
any  services  which  fell  exclusively  on  the  latter  class.  Josephus  (Bell.  Jml.  v.  5.  7) 
says  that  the  high  priest's  functions  were  limited  to  the  Sabbath,  the  new  moons, 
and  festivals  ;  but  in  Mishna  Thatnid,  vii.  3,  it  is  presupposed  that  he  might,  at  his 
pleasure,  take  part  in  the  sacrificial  services.  Secondly,  the  service  on  the  day  of 
atonement,  and  the  Urim  and  Thummim,  were  specially  assigned  to  the  high  priest 
(comp.  §  140  f.).  On  his  share  in  the  administration  of  justice,  see  below. — It  is 
further  to  be  noted,  that  the  whole  sacrificial  service  forms  a  self-contained  unity, 
and  that  the  .same  is  true  of  the  priesthood.  When  the  subordinate  priests  officiate 
at  the  service  of  the  sacrifice,  they  do  not  act  as  single  persons,  but  by  the  author- 
ity which  is  bestowed  on  the  whole  priesthood,  and  concentrated  in  the  high 
priest ;  and  thus  they  really  act  in  the  place  of  the  high  priest.  Hence  it  corre- 
sponds entirely  with  the  Mosaic  view  of  the  priesthood,  that  Sir.  xlv.  14,  16 
(17,  20)  designates  the  service  of  the  altar  simply  as  the  service  of  Aaron. 

(1)  Comp.  my  article  "  Hoherpriester, "  in  Herzog's  ^.  £/.  [with  additions  in  the 
2a  ed.  l)y  Delit/.sch]. 


§    97.]  THE    LEGISLATIVE    AUTHORITY.  217 

(2)  In  the  passages  which  treat  of  the  high-priesthood  in  the  middle  books  of 
the  Pentateuch,  Aaron,  the  first  bearer  of  the  office,  is  generally  named  instead  of 
the  office  itself.— t-'X'in  jnb  appears  only  in  the  later  style,  in  2  Kings  xxv.  18, 
Ezra  vii.  5,  2  Chron.  xix.  11,  corap.  xxiv.  6. — The  LXX  generally  write  6  lepeh^ 
6  //f>af,— Lev.  iv.  3,  apx/epevg,  and  generally  so  in  the  New  Testament,  in  Philo, 
and  Josephus. — On  the  apxiepelg  in  the  N.  T.,  see  Delitzsch  in  the  above-citctl 
article,  p.  238. 

(3)  Comp.  Calvin's  good  exposition  of  Ex.  xxviii.  38  :  "  Oblationum  sanctarum 
iniquitas  tollenda  et  purganda  fuit  per  sacerdotem.  Frigidum  est  ilhid  commen- 
tum,  si  quid  erroris  admissum  esset  in  ceremoniis,  remissum  fuisse  sacerdotis 
precibus.  Longius  enim  respicere  nos  oportet  :  idoo  oblationum  iniquitatem 
deleri  a  sacerdote,  quia  nulla  oblatio,  quatenus  est  hominis,  omni  vitio  caret. 
Dictu  hoc  asperum  est  et  fere  irapd^o^ov,  sanctitates  ipsas  esse  immundas,  ut  venia 
indigeant  ;  sed  tenendum  est,  nihil  esse  tam  purum,  quod  non  aliquid  labis  a 
nobis  contrahat. — Nihil  Dei  cultu  praestantius  :  et  tamen  nihil  oflerre  potuit  pop- 
ulus  etiam  a  lege  prsescriptum,  nisi  intercedente  venia,  quam  nonnisi  per  sacerdo- 
tem obtinuit. " 

(4)  ^K'^iy-TD  njJD  '"^p^-i  "  fequiparatur  universe  Israeli,"  says  Aben  Esra  on 
Lev.  iv.  13.  Compare,  in  particular,  Btihr,  Symbol,  des  mos.  Kultus,  1st  ed.  ii.  p. 
13  f. 

(5)  Zech.  iii.  must  be  explained  from  this  point  of  view  (comp.  §  200). 

(6)  The  words  (Lev.  xxi.  12),  "  He  shall  not  go  out  of  the  sanctuary,"  must  l)e 
supplemented  according  to  the  context,  funeris  causa  ;  x.  7  serves  for  explana- 
tion.— The  expression  in  xxi.  10,  "  he  shall  not  uncover  his  head,"  refers,  prob- 
ably, to  the  removing  of  the  head-dress  in  order  to  sprinkle  the  head  with  dust 
and  ashes  ;  see  Havernick  on  Ezek.  xxiv.  17.  But  Knobel  [and  Dillmanu]  under- 
stand i'^iil  to  mean,  leaving  the  liair  loose  or  flying.  Compare  on  this,  and  the 
command  not  to  rend  his  clothes,  the  above-cited  article,  p.  190  f. 

(7)  The  transference  of  the  office  of  high  priest  from  Aaron  to  Eleazar  took 
place  (Num.  xx.  26-28)  by  the  transference  of  the  ornaments  of  office. 

(8)  The  most  valuable  monographs  on  this  topic  are  :  Braun,  De  vestitu  sacer- 
dotum  heh'morum,  1680;  Carpzov,  De  pontifictim  heh'momm  vestitu  sacro,  in  Ugo-' 
lino's  Thes.  xii.  ;  Abraham  ben  David,  Dissert,  de  vestitu  sacerdotum  helyrceorum,  in 
Ugolino,  xiii. 

(9)  Compare,  also  Sir.  xlv.  9.  The  passage  Ex.  xxviii.  35  was  formerly  misun- 
derstood, chiefly  because  it  was  thought  needful  closely  to  connect  the  words 
niD^'  vh]  with  what  precedes  them  ;  see  the  genuinely  Rabbinical  explanation  in 
Abraham  ben  David,  I.e.  p.  xx.  f. 

(10)  The  term  "tlSlJ^n  V;.'0,  used  in  Ex.  xxviii.  31,  shows  that  the  Meil  has  no 
independent  importance.     [Above-cited  article.] 

(11)  Comp.  Cant.  viii.  6  ;  2  Cor.  vii.  3  ;  Phil.  i.  7.— The  plerosis  of  the  above 
provision  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  familiar. 


II.    THE   THEOCRATIC    AUTHORITY. 
1.      THE      LEGISLATIVE      AUTHORITY. 

§97. 

In  virtue  of  the  principles  of  the  theocracy,  all  the  powers  of  the  state  are  united 
(§  91)  in  Jehovah  ;  even  when  the  congregation  acts,  it  is  in  His  name.  He  is 
first  the  Lawgiver.  '^'^J^'^  (Isa.  xxxiii.  22).  His  legislative  power  He  exercised 
through  Moses.  The  fundamental  law  given  through  him  is  inviolably  valid  for 
all  time.     As  God's  covenant  with  His  people  is  eternal,  so  also  are  the  covenant 


218      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  97. 

ordinances  ;  tliey  arc,  as  the  expression  frequently  runs,  everlasting  laws  and 
statutes  for  Israel  and  the  future  generations  (see  Ex.  xii.  14,  17,  xxvil.  21,  xxviii. 
43,  and  many  passages).  The  Pentateuch  knows  nothing  of  a  future  change  in 
the  law,  nor  of  an  abrogation  of  it  even  in  part;  onlj  the  attitude  of  the  peoi)le 
toward  the  law  was  to  be  different  in  the  last  times  (see  §  90).  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  in  the  development  of  the  theocracy,  the  need  of  receiving  an  immediate 
proclamation  of  Jehovah's  kingly  will  must  always  reappear.  This  need  was  met 
by  the  Urim  and  Thummin,  through  which  the  high  priest,  in  whose  breastplate 
they  were  set,  received  the  decision  of  Jehovah  (Num.  xxvii.  21)  ;  and  this  is 
■why  the  breastplate  bears  the  name  Dpl^rsn  ]l^n  [the  breastplate  of  judgment] 
(Ex.  xxviii.  30).  It  probably  bore  some  resemblance  to  the  figure  made  of  pre- 
cious stones,  which  Diodorus  {Blhlloth.  i.  48,  75)  and  ^lian  {Var.  hist.  xiv.  34)  say 
the  Egyptian  high  priest  wore  round  his  neck,  and  which  bore  the  name  of  truth 
{aXr/Oeia),  as  indeed  the  Urim  and  Thummin  are  translated  by  the  LXX  by  6r/?M(nr 
Kal  alfjBeia.  The  term  Dni**  refers  to  the  divine  illumination,  the  D'^i^  to  the  un- 
impeachable correctness  of  the  divine  decision  ;  comp.  1  Sam.  xiv.  41.  It  cannot 
be  determined  from  the  Old  Testament  hoic  the  decision  took  place.  It  is  not  quite 
dear  from  the  expression  (Ex.  xxviii.  30;  Lev.  viii.  8),  "put  the  Urim  and 
Thummim  in  the  breastplate  of  judgment,"  that  the  Urim  and  Thummim  were 
something  different  from  the  precious  stones  which  were  set  in  the  breastplate  ; 
for  the  expression  may  stand  in  a  sense  similar  to  the  phrase,  to  lay  a  curse  or 
blessing  on  anything.  But  if  the  Urim  and  Thummin  are  really  spoken  of  in 
1  Sam.  xiv.  41  f.,  as  must  be  admitted,  if  we  adopt  the  fuller  text  of  the  LXX 
(with  Thenius  and  other  modern  writers),  they  must  be  regarded  as  a  holy  lot, 
different  from  the  gems  of  the  breastplate,  and  probably  fastened  to  it,  but  capa- 
ble of  being  taken  off  and  cast  (1).  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  to  be  noted 
that  the  term  7'3n,  to  cast  or  throw,  is  nowhere  else  used  of  the  Urim  and  Thum- 
mim. Since  every  part  of  the  liigh  priest's  dress  is  described  so  accurately,  we 
should  expect  to  have  a  more  particular  description  of  the  Urim  and  Thummim 
if  they  were  anything  distinct.  According  to  Josephus,  the  divine  answer  came 
by  the  sparkling  of  the  jewels  ;  even  the  Rabbinical  tradition,  though  it  is  so  di- 
vided on  points  of  detail,  is  almost  unanimous  in  declaring  that  the  revelation 
was  made  by  the  illumination  of  particular  letters  of  the  writing  on  the  jewels. 
But  several  late  writers,  and  especially  Bahr  {I  c.  ii.  p.  135  ff.),  think,  that  when 
the  high  priest  laid  the  matter  in  (piestion  liefore  God  in  prayer,  the  decision  fol- 
lowed by  imj)iration  ;  and  "  that  the  pledge  that  an  answer  should  be  given  him 
which  should  be  in  accordance  with  God's  will,  and  serve  for  the  good  of  the 
people,  was  worn  on  his  heart  in  the  Urim  an(1  Thummim."  Similarly  Hengsten- 
berg  {Hist,  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  2  Per.  p.  148  f.).  Thus  the  Urim  and  Thum- 
mim, whether  similar  to  the  precious  stones  of  the  breast [)late  or  different  from 
them,  would  have  had  simply  the  character  of  symbols  and  pledges.  There  arc 
no  satisfactory  grounds  for  this  view  of  Biihr's,  and  we  must  decline  to  accept 
it. — Tradition  says  that  it  was  not  permitted  to  consult  the  oracle  on  private 
concerns  and  on  matters  of  small  moment,  but  only  in  such  cases  as  concerned 
the  welfare  of  the  whole  people  (comp.  Judg.  xx.  37  f.).  1  Sam.  xxiii.  9  ff., 
XXX.  7  f.,  agree  with  this,  for  David  stands  before  the  high  priest  here  as  the  one 
who  is  ralleil  to  the  kingship.      After  Piwid   there  is  no  oc(;asion  on  which  this 


§  98.]     THE  PRIN'CIPLE,   ETC.,  OF  THE  ADMINISTRATION  OF  JUSTICE.     219 

oracle  is  consulted,  and  the  Urim  and  Thummim  seem  to  have  fallen  more  and 
more  into  disuse — displaced,  probably,  by  prophecy.  Josephus,  indeed,  says 
(Ant.  iii.  8.  9)  that  the  oracle  ceased  only  two  hundred  years  before  his  time  ; 
but  this  contradicts  the  passage  in  Ezra  ii.  63,  where  we  read  that  there  had 
been  no  oracle  since  the  exile  ;  and  with  this  Jewish  tradition  agrees. 

The  sacred  lot  seems  to  have  been  different  from  the  Urim  and  Thummim.  It 
was  employed  (Num.  xxvi.  55  f.  ;  Josh,  xiv.)  at  the  division  of  the  tribal  territo- 
ries, to  discover  the  guilty  one  who  had  brought  a  curse  on  the  people  (Josh.  vii. 
14  ff.),  and  in  1  Sam.  xiv.  41  (unless  the  Urim  and  Thummim  are  there  meant)  and 
1  Sam.  X.  20  f.,  at  the  king's  election.  The  lot  must  also  have  been  used  to  decide 
priestly  [?|  controversies  ;  compare  Prov,  xviii.  18. — These  methods  of  inquiring 
into  the  divine  will  retire  into  the  background  the  more  2)>'opJieci/  becomes  prom- 
inent. We  read  in  Deut.  xviii.  19  S.,  how  Moses,  before  parting  from  the  peo- 
ple, led  them  to  look  for  the  sending  forth  of  new  organs  of  revelation.  The 
people  who  stand  in  covenant  with  the  living  God  shall  not  be  left  to  a  helpless- 
ness which  might  be  the  occasion  of  seeking  disclosures  from  the  heathen  divina- 
tion, so  stringently  prohibited  in  all  its  forms  (2).  And  as  the  people  could  not 
bear  the  terror  of  an  immediate  revelation  from  God,  Jehovah  will  hold  com- 
munion with  them  through  vieti,  raising  up  again  and  again  from  the  midst  of 
the  people  such  men  as  Moses,  in  whose  mouth  He  puts  His  words.  These  are 
the  prophets,  the  D'X'?^  (3). 

(1)  1  Sam.  xiv.  41,  the  inquiring  into  the  divine  will  by  Saul  :  "God  of  Israel, 
give  D'pn," — give  a  pure,  true  utterance.-  Ver.  42:  "Draw  lots  between  me 
and  Jonathan." — I  believe,  with  Keil,  that  another  sacred  lot  is  here  spoken  of. 

(2)  Comp.  Num.  xxiii.  23  :  "  Surely  there  is  no  enchantment  in  Jacob,  neither 
is  there  any  divination  in  Israel  ;  in  due  time  it  is  told  of  Jacob  and  Israel  what 
God  doeth."     See  Ilongsteuberg  on  the  passage. 

(3)  The  Prophetic  Theology  further  on  is  connected  with  this  point.  ' 


2.    THE    JUDICIAL    POWER    (1). 

§98. 

7^e  Princi-ple  and  Organization,  of  the  Administration  of  Justice. 

The  administration  of  justice  is,  in  virtue  of  the  principles  of  theocracy,  only  an 
effltix  of  the  divine  judgment.  "The  judgment  is  God's,"  Deut.  i.  17;  to  seek 
justice  is  to  inquire  of  God,  Ex.  xviii.  15  ;  he  who  appears  in  judgment  comes 
before  Jehovah,  Deut.  xix.  17  ;  and  thus  also  the  expressions,  D'HlXn-iK  ti^'JIl, 
Ex.  xxi.  6,  and  D'ri7S<n  l;?  K13,  xxii.  8,  are  to  be  explained,  whether  it  be  that 
these  expressions  point  to  the  God  who  rules  in  the  administration  of  justice 
(comp.  also  xviii.  19),  or  that  the  judge  himself  is  called  Elohim,  as  the  one  who 
takes  the  place  of  God  (comp.  Ps.  Ixxxii.  1,  6,  but  not  Ex.  xxii.  27,  where  D'H  ^^ 
designates  God  ;  comp.  §  86).  The  theocratic  ordinances  of  judgment  limit  also 
the  power  of  the  head  of  a  family,  by  taking  from  him  (Deut.  xxi.  18  ff.  ;  Ex. 
xxi.  20)  the  power  over  the  life  and  death  of  those  belonging  to  him,  which  he 
still  exercised  (comp.  Gen.  xxxviii-  24)  jn  the  tipie  of  the  patriarchs.     Lynch 


2-^0      THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.     [§  98. 

law  is  also  forbidden,  because  the  office  of  avenger  is  God's  alone,  Lev.  xix.  18. 
The  old  custom  of  blood  revenge  is  indeed  retained,  but  it  is  subjected  to  theocratic 
regulations. 

"With  regard  to  the  organizatioii  of  the  courts  of  justice,  we  must  distinguish  in 
the  Pentateuch  the  j)rovisions  given  only  for  the  march  through  the  wilderness,  and 
the  regulations  in  Deuteronomy,  rchich  had  reference  to  later  circumstances. — Moses, 
who  at  the  beginning  united  in  his  person  all  the  theocratic  offices,  was  also  the 
first  judge,  Ex.  xviii.  13  ff.  As  he  was  unable  alone  to  meet  the  cares  of  justice, 
he  set  judges  over  the  people,— over  thousands,  over  hundreds,  over  fifties,  and 
over  tens,  at  Jethro's  advice,  ver.  25  f.  ;  Deut.  i.  12  flf.  At  the  nomination  of  the 
judges,  which  was  supported  by  the  choice  of  the  people  (Deut.  i.  13,  "Take 
you"),  the  moral  and  intellectual  qualities  of  those  nominated  were  chiefly  taken 
into  account,  Ex.  xviii.  21,  Deut.  1.  13,  15  ;  still  it  is  probable  that  Moses  (comp. 
Deut.  i.  5,  "I  took  the  chiefs  of  your  tribes")  was  guided  by  the  constitution  of 
the  tribes  then  existing  among  the  people,  and  at  the  same  time  by  regard  to  the 
military  division  of  the  people,  which  was  necessary  during  the  march  through 
tiie  wilderness  (comp.  Num.  xxxi.  14,  where  there  is  mention  of  military  captains 
over  thousands  and  over  hundreds). — We  are  not  to  think  of  appellate  courts  in 
connection  with  the  relation  of  these  judges  to  one  another.  The  subordinate 
judges  are  to  decide  minor  matters,  while  the  more  difficult  cases  are  brought 
before  Moses,  to  whom  they  are  referred  not  by  the  disputing  parties,  but  by  the 
subordinate  judges  who  find  the  matter  too  difficult  for  them,  Deut.  i.  17  f.  (Ex. 
xviii.  22,  26)  ;  upon  which  Moses  brings  it  before  Jehovah  ;  comp.  Ex.  xviii.  19, 
and  the  examples  in  Lev.  xxiv.  11  if..  Num.  xv.  33  ff.,  xxvii.  2  ff. 

Deuteronomy  lays  down  neio  regulations  for  the  time  of  the  approaching  settlement 
<f  the  peo2>le  in  the  land  (the  explanation  of  which  has  some  difficulties).  The 
administration  of  justice  is  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  congregation  ;  for  the 
nation  that  is  sanctified  to  God  has,  as  such,  the  calling  "to  put  away  the  evil 
from  among  it"  which  is  the  ever-recurring  formula  ;  see  passages  like  Deut.  xiii. 
6,  xvii.  7,  xxi.  21,  etc.,  compared  with  earlier  ones.  Lev.  xxiv.  14,  Num.  xv.  85. 
— A  very  vivid  description  of  the  way  in  which  courts  were  held  in  Israel  is  given 
in  later  times  by  the  story  of  the  judgment  of  Naboth,  1  Kings  xxi. — Hence  the 
administration  is  to  be  exercised  publicly,  at  the  open  places  before  the  gates, 
Deut.  xxi.  19,  xxiii.  15,  xxv.  7.  The  community  exercises  its  judicial  power  by 
special  judges,  who  are  to  be  placed  in  all  the  gates,  Deut.  xvi.  18  (Avho  decide 
"if  there  be  a  quarrel  between  men,"  xxv.  1).  These  are  different — see  Deut. 
xxi.  2,  comp.  Josh.  viii.  33  (xxiii.  2) — from  the  D'Jp^,  but  probably  are,  as  a 
rule,  taken  from  them.  The  college  of  the  D'JpT  itself  acts  only  in  cases  of  law, 
where  the  question  is  no  longer  one  of  judicial  inquiry,  but  of  judicial  inter- 
position in  a  matter  already  plain  ;  Deut.  xix.  12,  xxi.  19,  xxii.  15,  xxv.  8  (2).  A 
higher  tribunal  is  ordained  for  more  difficult  cases,  Deut.  xvii.  8  ff.  It  is  to  judge 
"  between  blood  and  blood  (i.e.  where  it  is  doubtful  under  which  category  (comp. 
Ex.  xxi.  12  IT.)  manslaughter  is  to  be  placed)  ;  between  strife  and  strife  (1"^, 
without  doubt  as  designation  of  the  causm  civiles)  ;  between  injury  and  injury" 
iV}}.  here,  and  in  xxi.  5,  no  doubt  denotes  bodily  injuries).  Here  also  the  court 
is  not  a  court  of  appeal,  but  has  to  decide  cases  in  which  the  local  courts  do  not 
venture  to  decide.     The  seat  of  this  liiglier  court  was  to  be  at  the  sanctuarv  :  it 


§    99.]  THE    COURSE    OF   JUSTICE   AND    PUKISHMENT.  221 

was  to  be  composed  of  priests,  who  (Lev.  x.  11)  were  to  give  a  decision  out  of  the 
law  (as  in  Num.  xv.  33,  xxvii.  2,  we  find  that  the  high  priest  took  a  part  in  the 
administration  of  justice),  and  a  civil  judge  who  had  other  judges  at  his  side, 
Deut.  xix.  17. — The  D"\p'^  appear  as  officers  subordinate  to  the  judges  (and  are 
mentioned  as  early  as  the  residence  in  Egypt,  as  tlie  overseers  of  the  people,  comp. 
§  26),  Deut.  i.  15,  xvi.  18  (comp.  Josh.  viii.  33  ;  1  Chron.  xxiii.  4,  etc.).  These, 
as  their  name  denotes,  were  "writers,"  from  which  arose  very  multifarious  em- 
ployments. In  the  highest  college  of  70  elders,  there  were  Shoterim,  Num.  xi. 
16.  They  had  to  act  in  selecting  men  for  war  service,  Deut.  xx.  5,  8,  9  ;  and 
many  other  duties  of  police  and  administration  may  have  been  added  to  this. 

(1)  For  the  literature,  compare  Schnell's  valuable  little  monograph.  Das 
israelitische  BecM  in  seinen  Gnmdzilgeii  dargestelU,  Basel,  1853.  Tlie  chief  work 
on  this  topic  is  the  book  by  Saalschutz,  Das  mosaische  Reeht,  two  parts,  1846-48, 
2d  ed.  1853.  See  also  my  article,  "  Gericht  und  Gerichtsverwaltung  bei  den 
Hebraern,"  in  Herzog's  i?.^.  vol.  v.  [also  Riehm,  art.  "  Gerichtswesen,"  in  his 
HandworterbucK] . 

(2)  See  Schultz  on  Deut.  xvi.  18,  etc. 


§  99. 

The  Course  of  Justice  and  Punishment. 

The  course  of  justice  is  very  simple  (1).  The  complaint  is  brought  before  the 
judges  by  word  of  mouth,  either  by  the  parties,  Deut.  xxi.  20,  xxii.  16,  or  by  others 
bringing  both  parties  in  the  dispute  into  court,  xxv.  1.  The  parties  must  both  ap- 
pear in  person  before  the  judge.  The  accused  person  who  does  not  appear  is  sent 
for  by  the  judge,  xxv.  8.  The  business  of  the  judge  is,  it  is  declared,  to  hear  and 
thoroughly  investigate.  The  law  (as  Schnell  rightly  observes)  accumulates  ex- 
pressions (comiJ.  e.g.  xiii.  14)  "to  represent  the  thoroughness  and  whole  compass 
of  the  work  of  the  judge,  in  its  earnestness,  penetration,  and  patience." — In  some 
circumstances  a  simple  exhibition  of  the  article  (Ex.  xxii.  12  (13))  serves  as 
evidence ;  Deut.  xxii.  15  is  an  example  of  such  evidence.  A  different  case  is 
when  parents  complain  against  a  disobedient  son  (xxi.  18  ff.).  Here  the  complaint 
itself  is  proof  (2). — But  the  testimony  of  toitnesses  is  the  most  usual  form  of  evi- 
dence. Special  emphasis  is  laid  upon  this.  It  is  enacted  that  two  or  three  (3) 
witnesses  shall  be  brought,  xix.  15,  particularly  in  criminal  cases.  Num.  xxxv. 
30  ;  Deut.  xvii.  6.  If  the  punishment  of  death  be  pronounced,  the  hand  of  the 
witnesses  must  be  the  first  lifted  against  the  person  to  be  punished,  Deut.  xiii. 
10,  xvii.  7.  All  the  witnesses  (Lev.  xxiv.  14)  lay  their  hands  on  the  head  of  him 
who  is  to  be  stoned.  He  who  was  convicted  of  false  witness  was  condemned  to 
the  same  punishment  as  the  accused  person  would  have  received,  Deut.  xix.  19. 
—Further,  the  oath  also  is  a  means  of  evidence.  It  occurs  as  an  oath  of  purgation  ; 
e.g.  for  theft,  Ex.  xxii.  6-10,  comp.  with  1  Kings  viii.  31  f.  Lev.  v.  1  is  often 
quoted  for  the  use  of  the  oath  in  evidence  ;  but  what  is  there  spoken  of  is  not  the 
administration  of  an  oath  to  the  witnesses  with  respect  to  what  they  utter,  but  a 
solemn  adjuration  of  those  present,  by  which  those  who  have  knowledge  of  the 
jnatter  are  called  oii  to  come  forward  as  witnesses  ;  comp.  Prov.  xxix.  24.     Lastly, 


222      THE  COVENANT  OK  (iOl)  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.     [§  99. 

we  have  to  add  the  adjuration  of  a  wife  who  was  accused  of  adultery,  which 
called  forth  an  immediate  judgment  from  God,  Num.  v.  11  ff.  The  Mosaic 
legislation  does  not  recognize  torture  as  a  means  of  evidence. — The  form  of  the 
sentence  of  judgment  is  not  laid  down.  As  a  rule,  execution  immediately 
followed  ou  condemnation,  Num.  xv.  3G  ;  Deut.  xxii.  18,  xxv.  2. 

The  Mosaic  principle  of  punishment  is  the  jus  talionis,  as  it  is  repeatedly  ex- 
pressed in  the  sentence,  "Life  for  life,  eye  for  eye,  tooth  for  tooth,"  etc.,  Ex. 
xxi.  23-25  ;  Lev.  xxiv.  18  11.;  Deut.  xix.  21  :  it  shall  be  done  to  him  who  has 
offended  as  he  has  done  ;  in  other  words,  the  punishment  is  a  retribution  corre- 
s])onding  in  quantity  and  quality  to  the  wicked  deed.  But  that  the  (alio  is  not 
meant  to  be  understood  in  a  merely  external  sense  is  not  only  shown  by  various 
provisions  of  punishment,  but  by  the  fact  that  not  simply  the  deed  itself,  but  the 
guilt  lying  at  the  root  of  the  deed,  is  often  taken  into  account  in  determining  the 
jmnishment.  The  2^i^Jiish7ne7it  of  death  is  attached  apparently  to  a  large  number 
of  crimes.  It  is  prescribed  not  only  for  the  crime  of  murder,  maltreatment  of 
jiarents,  man-stealing  (Ex.  xxi.  12  ff.),  adultery,  incest  and  other  unnatural  crimes, 
idolatry,  and  the  2)ractice  of  heathen  divination  and  witchcraft  (Lev.  xx.  Deut. 
xiii.  6  ff.),  but  for  overstepping  certain  fundamental  ordinances  of  the  theocracy, 
— the  law  of  circumcision.  Gen.  xvii.  14  ;  the  law  of  the  passover,  Ex.  xii.  15,19  ; 
the  Sabbath  law,  xxxi.  14  f. ;  the  pollution  of  sacrifices.  Lev.  vii.  20  ff.  ;  sacrific- 
ing at  other  places  than  the  sanctuary,  xvii.  8  f.  ;  certain  laws  of  purification, 
xxii.  3,  Num.  xix.  13,  20.  Yet  the  peculiar  expression,  "to  be  cut  off  from  his 
people"  (iOi!  ^-^i^p  ii)'r\r\  lyp.^n  nriiDJl),  is  chosen  for  the  punishment  of  trans- 
gressions of  the  latter  class  in  distinction  from  the  former, — an  expression  which, 
indeed,  cannot  refer  to  simple  banishment  (as  some  have  interpreted  it),  but  still, 
in  some  cases,  seems  to  point  to  a  punishment  to  be  executed  not  by  human  judg- 
ment, but  by  the  divine  power  ;  comp,  what  is  said  in  Lev.  xvii.  10  with  reference 
to  the  person  who  eats  blood  :  "  I  will  blot  out  that  person"  friljrn).  When 
the  punisliment  was  really  to  be  executed  by  human  judgment,  the  term  riOV  j"\"lD 
[he  shall  be  put  to  death],  is  used— as  of  the  violation  of  the  Sabbath  law,  Ex. 
xxxi.  14,  and  in  the  passages  of  the  former  kind,  Ex.  xxi.  12  ff.,  Lev.  xx.,  etc. 
In  general,  in  all  cases  where  the  people  did  not  execute  judgment  on  the  trans- 
gressor, Jehovah  Himself  reserves  the  exercise  of  justice  to  Himself  ;  see,  as  main 
passage,  Lev.  xx.  4-6.— In  the  Mosaic  law,  corporal  chastisement  (stripes)  appears 
as  another  form  of  punishment,  Deut.  xxv.  2  f.,  also  fines,  e.g.  Ex.  xxi.  22,  Lev. 
xxiv.  18,  etc.  The  jus  talionis  was  to  be  recognized  in  case  of  bodily  injury,  Ex. 
xxi.  23-25  ;  Lev.  xxiv.  19  f.;  Deut.  xix.  21.  But  while  this  was  the  principle 
announced,  we  may  suppose  tliat  a  proportionate  money  fine  generally  took  the 
place  of  bodily  punishment.  Further,  there  occurs  the  judicial  selling  of  a  guilty 
2)erson.  Tlie  Pentateu(;h,  on  the  contrary,  gives  no  information  of  imprisonment 
as  a  punishment  except  among  the  Egyptians  (Gen.  xxxix.  ff.),  and  the  Mosaic  law 
does  not  recognize  it  (though  certainly  at  a  later  time  this  punishment  occurs  in 
Israel  also)  ;  in  Lev.  xxiv.  12,  imprisonment  is  only  used  to  secure  the  man  for 
the  time.— With  what  emphasis  the  law  demands  the  strict  and  impartial  admin- 
istration of  justice,  especially  witli  reference  to  the  poor,  see  Ex.  xxiii.  6-8,  Lev, 
xix.  15,  Deut.  i.  16  f.,  and  other  passages  (12). 


§    100.]  THE    EXECUTIVE    I'OWEE,  223 

(1)  I  follow  closely  Schnell's  excellent  discussion,  he.  p.  10  E.  The  treatment 
of  these  topics  is  a  matter  for  lawyers,  and  it  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  Mosaic 
law  has  not  received  more  attention  from  them. 

(2)  In  Deut.  xxi.  18  IT., it  is  ordained  that,  if  the  chastisement  inflicted  on  a 
reckless,  stubborn  son  is  without  result,  he  shall  be  brought  by  the  parents  be- 
fore the  court  of  the  town,  and  be  put  to  death  by  sentence  of  the  judge.  —  Schnell 
continues.  I.e.  p.  11  :  "If  the  hearts  of  the  father  and  of  the  mother  consent  to 
deliver  their  child  to  the  judge  before  the  congregation  of  the  jjeojDle,  the  utmost 
is  done  that  the  judges  need  to  know." 

(3)  This  point  is  excellently  discussed  in  Gottlieltes  Redd  und  mensclilklie  tiat:.- 
vng^  Basel,  1839:  ''There  are  witnesses  of  God,  and  faithfid  witnesses;  and 
there  are  witnesses  who  cannot  show  the  truth,  and  witnesses  who  must  be  put 
to  shame.  Therefore  the  judges  are  permitted  and  ordered  to  consider,  besides 
those  things  which  come  before  their  eyes,  other  points  which  may  decide  whether 
they  shall  require  the  evidence  of  two  or  of  three  witnesses." 


3.    THE   EXECUTIVE   POWER. 

§100. 

The  Mosaic  theocracy  presents  the  peculiar  phenomenon  of  being  originally 
unprovided  with  a  definite  office  for  executing  the  power  of  the  state.  The  princes 
of  the  tribes  (D'X'E/^),  spoken  of  in  Num.  i.  IG,  44,  vii.  2,  Ex.  xxxiv.  31,  and  else- 
where (called  also  "heads  of  the  tribes''  (D'li'N"!)  Num.  xxx.  2;  Deut.  v.  20) 
form  no  theocratic  body  (1).  They  are  taken  from  the  Q'J.pi,  who  arose,  doubt- 
less, from  the  heads  of  clans  and  families  (2).  The  latter  had,  indeed,  a  judicial 
position,  but  they  appear  mainly  as  representatives  of  the  people  ("T^I'i^  '^^'Ip, 
Num.  i.  16,  comp.  with  xvi.  2),  not  of  Jehovah.  That  they  were  appointed  for 
certain  services  always  rests  on  a  special  nomination.  Thus  the  committee  of  the 
Seventy  was  formed,  who  (Num.  xi.  16  if.)  were  to  stand  by  Moses'  side  in  lead- 
ing the  people,  but  who  appear  to  have  existed  only  for  the  time  of  the  march 
through  the  wilderness,  though  the  Talmud  derives  the  origin  of  the  Sanhedrim 
from  them.  In  the  same  way,  twelve  chiefs  were  deputed  to  spy  out  the  Holy 
Land  (Num.  xiii.  2  ff.),  and  twelve  princes  were  made  the  committee  formed 
for  dividing  the  land,  xxxiv.  18  ff.  But  all  this  constitutes  no  permanent  execu- 
tive. Jehovah  Himself  acts,  as  circumstances  demand,  in  the  immediate  exercise 
of  power,  in  order  to  execute  His  kingly  will  and  to  maintain  the  covenant  law  ; 
but  for  the  rest,  only  the  assurance  is  expressed  (Num.  xxvii.  16  f.)  that  Jehovah 
will  not  leave  His  congregation  as  a  flock  without  a  shepherd,  but  will  always, 
again  and  ngain,  appoint  a  leader  over  them  and  endow  him  with  His  Spirit,  as 
He  raised  up  Joshua  in  Moses'  stead,  and  afterward  the  Judges.— This  want  of  a 
regular  executive  in  the  Mosaic  constitution  has  been  thought  very  remarkable 
(3).  It  has  been  thought  inconceivable  that  Moses  did  so  little  for  the  execution 
of  his  detailed  legislation — that  he  did  not  see  that  without  a  supreme  authority 
no  state  could  possibly  exist.  It  is  said  that  this  is  a  strong  proof  that  the  whole 
Mosaic  state,  as  it  is  laid  before  us  in  the  Pentateuch,  is  only  an  historical  abstrac- 
tion. But  the  theocratic  constitution  does  not  rest  on  the  calculations  of  a  clever 
founder  of  a  religion,  but  on  the  stability  of  the  counsel  of  revelation,  which  is 
certain  of  its  realization  (in  spite  of  the  apparent  inadequacy  of  the  earthly  insti- 


334  THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  100. 

tution)  ;  that  defect  is  simply  a  proof  of  the  strength  and  self-confidence  of  the 
theocratic  i)rinciple.  Moreover,  the  whole  history  of  the  people  in  the  time  of 
the  Judges  is  to  be  understood  only  on  the  presupposition  that  there  was  no  es- 
tablished executive  power  in  the  state. 

Yet  Deuteronomy,  in  the  law  concerning  a  king,  in  chap.  xvii.  14-20,  leaves 
open  the  possibility  of  setting  up  an  earthly  kingship.  The  actual  existence  of 
this  office  in  the  future  is  afterward  presupposed  in  xxviii.  36  (comp.  moreover, 
the  previous  prophecy  in  Gen.  xvii.  6,  16,  xxxv.  11  ;  Num.  xxiv.  17).  This  future 
kingship  is,  however,  subjected  strictly  to  the  theocratic  principle.  The  people 
shall  only  set  over  them  as  king  one  ichom  Jehovah  shall  choose  out  of  their  midst. 
The  kingly  dignity  shall  indeed  be  confined  to  Israelites  by  descent,  but  not  to 
any  particular  privileged  family  (like  the  priesthood)  ;  while,  at  the  same  time,  it 
is  not  conferred  by  the  free  choice  of  the  people  (as  the  Edomites,  for  example, 
Gen.  xxxvi.  31-39,  must  have  had  such  an  elective  kingship).  The  chosen  king 
shall  "  not  keep  many  horses"— that  is,  he  is  not  to  defend  his  kingdom  by  a 
standing  army  (comp.  Isa.  xxxi.  1)  ;  he  shall  likewise  avoid  luxury  and  the  keep- 
ing of  many  wives.  He  is,  further,  not  to  regard  himself  as  the  people's  lawgiver, 
but  shall  take  the  divine  law  as  his  strict  rule,  "  that  his  heart  may  not  be  lifted 
up  above  his  brethren,  and  that  he  may  not  deviate  from  the  command,  either  to 
the  right  hand  or  the  left"  (4).  The  stability  of  his  kingship  and  its  descent  to 
his  children  are  to  depend  on  his  obedience  to  the  law. — It  cannot  be  denied  that 
the  law  relating  to  the  king  in  Deuteronomy,  inasmuch  as  it  claims  to  be  regarded 
as  Mosaic,  is  a  little  remarkable  ;  and  what  is  remarkable  in  it  is  not  that  Moses 
contemplated  in  general  the  institution  of  an  earthly  kingship,  for  sufficient  oc- 
casion for  this  is  contained  in  the  political  constitution  of,  "all  the  nations 
around  "  (Deut.  xvii.  14)  ;  but  the  main  difficulty  is  that,  not  to  speak  of  the  ex- 
ample of  Gideon  (Judg.  viii.  33),  there  is  no  express  reference  to  a  pre-existing 
Mosaic  law  relating  to  the  king  when  Samuel  set  up  the  kingdom  (though  the 
proceeding  then  was  quite  in  the  spirit  of  the  law-),  but  the  royal  authority  wjxs 
first  established  by  Samuel,  and  then  (1  Sam.  x.  25)  recorded  in  the  book  which 
is  before  Jehovah,  that  is,  the  book  of  the  law. 

Hence,  in  connection  with  the  supposition  that  the  law  in  Deuteronomy  is  of 
more  recent  origin,  many  modern  theologians  regard  the  law  concerning  the 
king  as  a  later  production,  formed  on  the  model  of  the  provisions  sketched  by 
Samuel,  with  reference  to  the  unhappy  experiences  of  the  time  of  Solomon  (5)  •, 
but  this  makes  it  difficult  to  explain  why  a  later  writer  could  give  as  the  reason 
of  the  law  forbidding  to  keep  horses  (Deut.  xvii.  IG),  that  the  people  must  not 
be  brought  back  again  to  Egypt  (6). 

(1)  [Comp.  the  art.  "  Aeltestebei  den  Israelitcn,"  by  F.  W.  Schultz,  in  Herzog, 
and  by  Kielnn  in  liis  Ilandwortcrhuch.] 

(2)  Tlie  elders  were  not  appointed  by  free;  choice,  as  Winer,  in  his  Bill. 
Jiml-Worterhiirh,  3d  ed.  i.  p.  50,  and  Kurtz,  History  of  the  Old  Covenant,  ii.  p. 
160,  have  supposed,  holding  tlie  view  that  the  elders  form  in  a  certain  sense  the 
personal  nolnlity,  or  nobility  of  merit,  in  distinction  from  the  nobility  of  birth, 
th(!  princes  of  tlie  tribes.  See  the  proof  for  the  view  in  the  text  in  my  article 
"  Stiinime  Israels,"  in  Herzog's  li.E. 

(3)  Comp.  Vatke,  Rdigion  'des  A.    T.  p.  207  f.   [Also,  Wellhausen,  i,  p.  438.] 

(4)  There   caimot  be  a  stronger  contrast  to  Oriental  despotism. 


§   101.]  TSE   SUBDIVISIONS   OF  THE  TRIBES.  ^2b 

(5)  Comp.  Riehm,  die  Gesetzgehung  Mosis  im  Lande  Moai,  p.  81  ff.,  and  against 
him  Keil,  in  Hiivernick's  Introduction  to  the  Peiitatevch ,  p.  349  f. 

(6)  Riehm,  I.e.  p.  100,  says  the  passage  points  to  a  time  when  the  Egyptians 
were  in  want  of  soldiers,  so  that  the  king  of  Israel  could  only  get  horses  from 
Egypt  on  the  condition  of  sending  Israelitish  foot-soldiers  there  and  putting 
them  at  the  disposal  of  the  king  of  Egypt.  This  is  supposed  to  apply  to  the  tune  of 
Psammctichus.  This  hypothesis  has  no  support  in  the  Old  Testament. — The 
words  only  suit  a  time  in  which  the  stay  in  Egypt  was  still  fresh  in  the  people's 
memory,  and  so,  in  the  hard  struggles  that  they  had  to  encounter,  could  re- 
awaken a  desire  toward  the  habitation  they  had  quitted.  (Comp.  Hengstenberg, 
Genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch^  ii,  p.  302  f.) 


III.    THE   ORGANIZATION   OF   THE   FAMILY,  AND    THE   LEGAL   PROVISIONS  CONNECTED 

THEREWITH. 

§101. 

The  Sithdivisions  of  the  Tribes.    TJie  Principles  and  Division  of  Mosaic  Family  Law. 

The  tribes  are  naturally  divided  into  clans  (r>in3"^p,  LXX  (%o?,  or  D'ijSx)  (1)  ; 
these  into  families  or  houses  (Q'0|,  olaoi),  generally  called  fathers''  houses  (/^'3 
rii;3!(<)  ;  then  follow  the  various  householders  (D'")3J),  with  those  that  belong  to  them. 
See  the  most  distinct  passage,  Josh.  vii.  14,  17  f.,  and  also  especially  Num.  i.  2, 
18,  also  Ex.  vi.  14.  The  term  ri"in«  n'3,  "father's  houses"  (not  "fathers' 
house,"  as  Clericus  and  others  have  understood  it),  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  plural 
of  the  less  common  singular,  3X  JTS  (2).  Beside  this  meaning  of  ^^  ri'^jl,  which 
is  unquestionable,  from  the  already-cited  passages  and  others,  such  as  1  Chron. 
vii.  7,  40,  there  is  another  sense  of  the  word,  which  is,  however,  disputed.  On 
the  one  view,  father''s  house  is  a  relative  idea  of  general  application,  like  our 
"family"  or  "house;"  designating  a  community  which  has  a  common  father, 
it  may,  it  is  said,  designate  whole  tribes  (Num.  xvii.  17  ;  Josh.  xxii.  14),  and 
also  may  stand  for  a  nnpE/p  (3)  ;  comp.  Num.  iii.  24,  30,  35,  and  other  passages. 
On  the  other  view,  3K  H'^,  in  passages  of  this  sort — and  this  is  probably  the 
original  meaning — designates  particularly  that  family  which  held  the  piincipality 
in  each  tribe  and  race  as  the  family  of  the  first-born  (so  that  the  representatives 
of  tribes  might  be  called  also  heads  of  the  houses  of  the  father)  (4). 

The  ^rZnc/p?6S  of  the  Mosaic  law  of  families  are  the  following: — Each  family 
forms  a  self-contained  whole,  which,  as  far  as  possible,  is  to  be  preserved  in  its 
integrity.  Each  Israelite  is  a  citizen  of  the  theocracy  only  by  being  a  member 
of  a  certain  clan  of  the  covenant  people  ;  hence  the  value  of  genealogical  trees. 
The  representation  of  the  family  descends  in  the  male  line,  and  therefore  marriages 
between  the  various  tribes  and  families  are  of  course  allowed.  On  the  contrary, 
if  the  male  line  has  died  out,  the  female  line  receives  independent  recognition  for 
the  preservation  of  the  family,  in  order  that  no  family  in  Israel  may  perish  (a  thing 
which  is  regarded  as  a  special  divine  judgment).  The  separation  of  family  pos- 
sessions is  based  on  the  separation  of  the  families  themselves. 

The  following  points  are  the  most  important  for  biblical  theology  : — 1.  The 
law  of  marria<re  ;  2.  The  relation  of  parents  and  children  ;  3.  The  law  of  inheri- 
tance, and  the  provisions  touching  the  continuance  of  a  family  and  its  possessions, 


226   THE  COVE.VAKT  OF  ftOD  WITIT  TSRAKL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY,    [§  102. 

(the  avenging  of  blood  goes  along  with  this)  ;  4.   The  law  concerning  servants 

(5). 

(1)  With  reference  to  the  expression  D'ijSN,  thousands,  see  in  particular  1  Sam. 
X.  19,  comp.  with  ver.  21.  It  is  probable  that  this  designation  arose  from  Moses 
having  followed,  as  much  as  possible,  the  natural  organization  of  the  tribes 
when,  according  to  Ex.  xviii.  25,  he  divided  the  people  by  thousands,  hundreds, 
etc.  (§  08),  for  the  purpose  of  the  administration  of  justice.  See  art.  "  Stamme 
Israels,"  in  Herzog. 

(2)  The  term  is  thus  a  sort  of  compound  ;  comp.  Ewald,  Ausf.  Lehrh.  8th  ed. 
§  270(?.  Thus,  in  2  Kings  xvii.  29,  32,  ^1103  n'3  means  houses  of  high  places.— 
When  "'d^'l  precedes,  the  shorter  form  rii3X  is  sometimes  used  instead  of  ri'3 
nnx  (Num.  xxxvi.  1  ;  1  Chron.  vii.  11  ;  comp.  with  ver.  9,  viii.  10,  13,  etc.) 
[in  the  article  cited  above]. 

(3)  As  also  nnaiy?  is  frequently  used  in  a  wider,  and  O^iy  (Num.  iv.  18  ; 
Judg.  XX.  12)  in  a  narrower  sense  [in  the  article  cited  abovej. 

(4)  It  is  difficult  to  decide  the  controversy,  and  we  cannot  here  enter  into  it 
particularly.  For  the  former  view,  comp.  Knobel  on  Ex.  vi.  14  ;  this  is  the  most 
common  view.  In  reference  to  the  latter  view,  which  is,  I  believe,  the  right 
one,  see,  in  particular,  Keil's  thorough  discussion  in  his  Blhl.  Archdol.  ii.  pp. 
197,  201  ff.  [andDillmann  on  Ex.  vi.,  14]. — A  certain  number  of  heads  was  proba- 
bly requisite  to  obtain  the  rank  of  a  clan  or  father's  house  ;  for  inl  Chron.  xxiii. 
11  it  is  said,  in  reference  to  two  descendants  of  a  Levitical  race,  that  they  were 
miited  into  one  paternal  house  on  account  of  the  small  number  of  their  children  ; 
comp.,  too,  Mic.  v.  1.  The  number  of  one  thousand  men  able  to  go  to  war  (see 
note  1)  may  have  been  the  minimum  size  of  a  clan.  But  the  clans  must  have 
been  much  larger  at  the  numbering  of  the  people  related  in  Num.  xxvi.,  when 
the  people  (without  counting  the  tribe  of  Levi,  which  was  not  mustered)  were  divid- 
ed into  fifty-seven  clans.  —  The  subdivisions  of  the  people  were  mainly  formed  on 
the  principle,  that  as  the  tribes  sprang  from  Jacob's  sons,  so  the  clans  sprang 
from  his  grandchildren,  and  the  father's  houses  from  his  great-grandchildren. 
However,  it  lay  in  the  nature  of  the  case  that  this  original  relationship 
was  modified  in  many  ways  in  the  course  of  time.  Some  clans  disappeared, 
while  from  others  new  ones  were  formed,  in  ways  for  which  no  fixed  principle 
can  be  found,  and  which  were  doubtless  modified  by  very  various  circumstances. 
— Examples  to  illustrate  the  above  propositions  in  the  above-cited  article,  p.  770. 

(5)  If  we  were  discussing  a  system  of  modern  law,  we  should  adopt  a  very 
different  division  ;  but  the  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament  must  explain  the  law 
as  much  as  possible  in  the  real  connection  in  which  it  appears  in  the  legislation 
itself. 

1.    THE    LAW   OP  MARRIAGE. 

§102. 

(a)  The  Contracting  of  Marriage :  the  Dependent  Position  of  the  Wife^  and   the  Forms 

of  the  Marriage  Contract. 

In  the  Mosaic  law,  woman  appears  not,  indeed,  in  the  position  of  degradation 
which  she  has  among  most  other  Oriental  nations,  but  still  dependent,  inas- 
much as  her  will  is  subject  before  marriage  to  the  will  of  her  father,  and  after 
marriage  to  the  will  of  her  husband  ;  it  is  only  when  this  tie  is  loosed  that  the 
Avife  holds  a  position  of  relative  independence.  This  principle  comes  out  with 
special  clearness  in  the  law  concerning  vows,  Num.  xxx.  4-10  (comp.  §  134, 
with  note  10). 


§    102.]  TrlE    LAW   OP   MAllUlAGE.  227 

The  marriage  contract  is  goncrally  supposed  to  have  rested  on  a  bargain 
made  between  the  ji^irents  of  the  bride  and  bridegroom,  in  virtue  of  which  a 
price  was  paid  to  the  father  of  the  bride  for  his  daughter,  ino  (generally 
translated  "dowry")  (and  so  the  principle  just  stated  would  come  out  even  in 
the  making  of  the  marriage).  According  to  others,  on  the  contrary  (1),  no  such 
selling  took  place,  and  "'HrD  means  the  present  sent  to  the  hride  by  the  bridegroom, 
to  which  were  added  other  presents  called  n^J^JO  or  jriO,  for  the  kinsfolk  of  the 
bride.  Certainly  this  is  the  manner  of  procedure  in  Gen.  xxiv.  53,  with  which 
we  may  compare  xxxiv.  12  ;  and  in  xxiv.  58  the  consent  of  the  eldest  brother  and 
the  bride  herself  is  demanded,  besides  that  of  the  parents  (2).  Further,  if  the 
example  of  Jacob's  wooing  and  his  treatment  by  Laban  are  adduced  in  favor  of 
the  dominant  view,  the  opposite  opinion  appeals  to  Gen.  xxxi.  15,  where  Laban's 
daughters  complain  that  their  father  has  treated  them  like  strangers,  and  wasted 
their  money  (lJ3ip3).  But  not  only  does  1  Sam.  xviii.  25  speak  for  the  view  that 
the  Mohar  was  given  to  the  father,  but  also  the  passages  Ex.  xxii.  16,  Deut.  xxii.  29 
(in  which,  in  the  case  of  a  maiden  being  forced,  the  Mohar  was  given  to  the 
father),  as  well  as  the  circumstance  that,  Ex.  xxi.  7,  tlie  father  had  the  right  to 
sell  his  daughter  to  another,  who  wished  her  cither  for  his  own  wife  or  for  his 
son's  wife  (3).  It  is  most  probable  that  various  forms  of  the  marriage  contract  existed 
side  ly  side  (4),  and  that  the  nobler  form  is  to  be  looked  upon  as  having  come 
down  from  patriarchal  times.  As  a  rule,  the  wife  did  not  bring  froiperty  into 
the  marriage,  for  by  the  law  property  rests  with  the  husband.  Heiresses  are 
exceptions,  as  we  shall  see  later  (§  106).  Still  at  least  one  example  of  a  dowry  is 
mentioned  in  Josh.  xv.  18  f.  The  law  does  not  require  a  religious  consecration  of 
the  matrimonial  tie  ;  but  it  is  clear  from  Mai.  ii.  14  that  marriage  was  to  be  re- 
garded as  a  divinely  sanctioned  bond.  Purity  of  entrance  into  the  married  state 
is  guarded  by  such  laws  as  Deut.  xxxii.  13  ff.  and  ver.  28  f.  Owing  to  the  wife's 
dependent  state,  marriage  with  women  not  Israelites  could  not  in  general  be 
specially  objected  to  ;  compare  the  law  on  marriage  with  virgins  taken  in  war, 
Deut.  xxi.  10-13  (even  Moses  himself  h^ad  a  Cushite  wife.  Num.  xii.  1)  ;  only 
marriage  with  Canaanitish  women  was  absolutely  forbidden,  Ex.  xxxiv.  16,  Deut. 
vii.  3.  The  wife's  dependent  place  favored  the  spread  of  polygamy,  although, 
as  has  been  already  remarked  (§  69),  this  was  in  contradiction  to  the  Mosaic  idea 
of  marriage.  It  is  nowhere  expressly  approved,  but  is  limited  only  by  the  provi- 
sion in  Lev.  xviii.  18  (comp.  §  69,  2).  In  the  same  way,  it  is  forbidden  by  the 
law,  Ex.  xxi.  10  f.,  to  allow  the  rights  of  the  first  married  wife  to  suffer  by  a 
later  marriage. 

(1)  So,  for  example,  following  Saalschiitz,  Keil,  Archdologie,  ii.  p.  67  ff.  [Comp. 
on  this  and  the  other  questions  referred  to  in  this  section,  and  especially  on  the 
position  of  w^oman  in  the  Old  Testament,  Bestmann,  Gesch.  d.  chr.  Sitte, 
i.  264  ff.] 

(2)  Gen.  xxiv.  58  :   "Wilt  thou  go  with  the  man  ?— I  wdl  go." 

(3)  On  Ex.  xxi.  7,  touching  the  rights  of  servants,  see  §  110. 

(4)  Even  Roman  law  knows  various  forms  of  the  marriage  contract. 


'Z2S   THE  COVEXAXT  Oi''  UOL)  Willi  ISKAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  103. 

§  103. 

Continuation :  Bars  to  Marriage  (1). 

In  the  Mosaic  law  of  marriage,  the  provisions   concerning  ohstacles  to  marriage 
which  stand  in  marked  contrast  with  the  depravity  of  Canaanitish  and  Egyptian 
heathenism  (Lev.  xviii.  3,  24,  xx.    33),  and   in  which  the   moral  earnestness   of 
the   Mosaic   law   is   brought  out,  occupy  an  important  place.     These  provisions 
are  contained  in  Lev.  xviii.  6-18,  xx.  11-21  ;  to  which  are  added  Deut.  xxvii.  20, 
22  f.     All  marriages  with  near  relations  are  forbidden,  and  that  not  only  with 
blood  relations,  but  also  with  connections  by  affinity.  In  reference  to  Uood  relation- 
ship, the  principle  laid  down  is  (Lev.  xviii.  6),  ^Ip^  «^  i^^l  ^KK;-b3-b{<  tJ/'X  E/'K. 
"We  see  here  that  the  word  "^Vi^  (flesh)  stands  directly  for  a  blood  relation,  e.g. 
ver.  12,  etc.  ;  and  '^I^P  is  a  designation  of  blood  relationship,  ver.  17.    Marriage  is 
forbidden  between  parents  and  children,  grandparents  and  grandchildren  ;    also 
between  brothers  and  sisters — as  well  between  half  as  full  brother  and  sister  ; 
likewise  marriage  with  the  sister  of  the  father  and  mother,  but  not  marriage  be- 
tween  uncle  and  niece,  is  forbidden  (Lev.  xviii.  6-13).     Nevertheless,  marriage 
with  an  aunt  is  not  treated  as  a  crime  worthy  of  death,  like  the  rest  ;    it  is  only 
said.  Lev.  xx.  19,  "they  shall  bear  their  iniquity."    But  the  punishment  of  death 
was  appointed  for  the  other  forbidden  marriages,  xx.  17  ;    comp.  Deut.  xxvii.  22. 
The  history  of  Tamar,  in  2  Sara.  xiii.  13,  raises  a  difficulty,  because  there  marriage 
with  a  half-sister  seems  to  be  looked  on  as  permitted.  Probably  the  words  are  only 
to  be  understood  as  an  attempt  at  escape  on  the  part  of  Tamar. — Among  connec- 
tions by  affinity   (Lev.    xviii.    8,  14  ff.)  marriage  is  forbidden — 1.  with  a   step- 
mother,  step-daughter,    step-grandchild,    mother-in-law,     and    daughter-in-law. 
These  are  punished  by  death,  Lev.   xx.  11-14  ;   comp.  Deut.   xxvii.  20,  23  ;  2. 
marriage  with  an  uncle's  widow  on  the  father's  side,  and  with  a  brother's  widow 
— the  latter  with  the  exception  of  the  Levirate  marriage  (on  this  later,  §  106) — 
that  is,  if  the  brother  has  left  children  by  his  wife.     Over  these  last-named 
marriages   impends  the  punishment  of  childlessness,  which  is  not  to  be  under- 
stood, with  J.  D.  Michaelis  (Mas.  Redd,  v.  p.  199),  as  referring  to  civil  childless- 
ness— that  is,  that  the  children  of  such  a  marriage  were  not  reckoned  to  their 
real  father,  but  to  his  dead  brother  or  his  father's  brother,  but   is  rather  to   be 
regarded  as  the  actual  withdrawal  of  the  blessing  of  children  threatened  by  God, 
so  that  no  judicial  act  takes  place. — Marriage  with  the  widow  of  a  mother's 
brother,   and  a  wife's  sister  after  the  wife's  death,  was  allowed  ;    for  the  prohi- 
bition mentioned  in  §  102,  Lev.  xviii.  18  (that  a  man  may  not  marry  two  sisters), 
refers  expressly  only  to  the  time  when  the  wife  still  lives  ;   marrying  both  at  the 
same  time,  as  the  patriarch  Jacob  did,  was  forbidden  (2). 

On  what  ground  do  these  provisions  of  the  law  rest?  Some  of  them  may  appear 
singular  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Pentateuch  gives  instances  of  such 
marriages  from  very  early  history,  and  even  relates  that  Abraham  married  a 
half-sister,  for  this  is  the  most  probable  view  of  his  relation  to  Sarah, 
Michaelis  {I.e.  p.  178  ff.)  takes  the  view  that  such  prohibitions  had  only  the 
purpose  of  preventing  the  seduction  of  persons  living  together  in  one  house  ;    but 


I    103.]  iBAKS   TO    MARRiAGi;.  220 

this  is  certainly  wrong,  for  in  this  case  such  marriages  would  not  be  shame- 
ful in  themselves,  as  they  are  called,  viz.,  HDI  (Lev.  xviii.  17,  xx.  14,  etc.)  an 
expression  which  properly  means  a  design,  malice,  but  is  used  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment of  gross  crime  ;  and  further,  IPD,  disgrace,  xx.  17  (in  the  Aramaic  use  of 
the  word),  /5J[jl,  ver.  13.  Even  reference  to  the  horror  naturalis  is  not  sufficient  • 
for,  as  several  heathen  nations  allowed  marriages  with  the  nearest  blood  relatives 
(in  Lev.  xviii.  3,  24  this  is  mentioned  as  customary  among  the  Egyptians  and 
Canaanites),  it  is  manifest  that  it  is  in  the  first  instance  a  vioral  horror  that  must 
prevent  such  marriages,  and  that  the  feeling  tliat  is  called  hoi-ror  naturalis 
proceeds  only  from  this.  The  moral  ground  for  the  prohibition  can  be  no  other 
than  the  fact  that  a  moral  fellowship  is  already  constituted  through  the  natural 
forms  of  near  relationship,  which  would  he  disturbed  ly  the  matrimojiial  bond. 
Parental  and  fraternal  love  on  the  one  side,  and  the  love  of  married  persons  on 
the  other,  are  so  specifically  different,  that  by  mixing  the  two  neither  can  find 
full  and  holy  development.  The  one  moral  relationship  is  sacrificed,  without 
the  other  being  really  called  into  existence  (3).  As  far  as  a  definitely  marked 
moral  relation  is  constituted  by  relationship,  so  far  is  it  forbidden  to  mino-le  it 
with  the  marriage  relation.  Even  the  marriage  of  a  nephew  with  the  sister  of 
the  father  or  mother  breaks  up  a  natural  relationship,  since  the  man  ought  to  be 
the  head  of  the  woman  ;  but  not  so  the  marriage  of  an  uncle  and  niece.  The 
circumstance  that  marriage  is  forbidden  with  a  father's  brother's  widow,  and 
not  with  a  mother's  brother's  widow,  is,  I  believe,  to  be  exi)lained  by  the 
fact  that  the  father's  brother  stands  in  a  position  of  higher  authority  toward 
the  nephew  than  docs  the  mother's  brother,  in  virtue  of  the  value  which  the 
husband's  side  has  in  the  family. — With  the  reason  just  stated  is  connected  the 
further  reason  given  by  Augustine,  that  by  divine  ordinance  the  moral  fellowship 
of  mankind  was  to  be  realized  in  a  variety  of  forms.  In  ancient  times  this 
purpose  was  served  by  the  marriage  of  brother  and  sister  ;  indeed,  that  was 
the  only  means  of  realizing  it.  But  Abraham's  marriage  with  his  half-sister,  if 
Sarah  really  was  such,  seems,  from  the  Mosaic  standpoint,  to  have  been  justified 
mainly  because  through  it  alone  the  pollution  of  the  race  of  revelation  by  heathen 
elements  was  prevented  ;    comp.  Gen.  xxiv.  3  (4). 

(1)  The  provisions  on  this  point  are  very  fully  given  in  the  Old  Testament. 
Biblical  theology  must,  of  course,  here  confine  itself  rigidly  to  what  is  expressly 
stated.  When"  Thiersch  (Ber  Verlot  der  Eke  in  zu  naher  Verwandtschaft,  1869) 
proceeds  on  the  supposition  that  the  law  gives  concrete  provisions,  from  wliich 
other  provisions  are  to  be  deduced,  this  is  quite  right  in  itself  (and,  indeed,  is 
true  of  the  whole  Mosaic  law).  But  if,  from  the  provisions  in  the  Mosaic  law  of 
bars  to  marriage,  we  infer  the  existence  of  others,  the  question  is  whether  we 
hit  the  right  principle  ;  and  here,  I  believe,  Thiersch  has  failed. 

(3)  This  is  the  famous  point  of  controversy  so  often  discussed  in  the  English 
Parliament.  But  there  can  be  no  doubt  upon  the  matter  whatever.  All  the 
arguments  brought  to  prove  that  marriage  with  the  sister  of  a  dead  wife  is,  ac- 
cording to  Mosaism,  a  sin,  and  the  analogies  on  which  this  conclusion  is  based 
{e.g.  by  O.  v.  Gerlach)  are  quite  worthless.— Difficult  is  1'^V^  in  Lev.  xviii.  18. 
Many,  as  Gesenius,  give  the  word  a  sense  not  elsewhere  found  in  Hebrew  (but  in 
Arabic)  :  "  ita  wi  zelotypm  fiant  una  alterius  ajmula  sit,"  "to  jealousy;"  but  it 
is  probably  to  be  taken  in  a  wider  sense,  "  to  hostility  ;"  [so  also  Dillmann.  On  the 
other  hand,  P.  de  Lagarde  {Nachrichten  d.  K.  Qesellschaft  der  Wissenschaften  zu  Got- 


•230   TIIH  COVEN' AXT  OF  001)  WITH  ISRAEL  AXD  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  104. 

tl:i<jc'a,  1882,  xiii.  393  IT.)  endeavor  to  prove  tliat  lli*  in  Lev.  xviii.  18  is  to  be 
regarded  as  a  denominative  verb  from  the  substantive  T^-\^  common  to  the  He- 
l)re\vs,  Syrians,  and  Arabs,  whicli  is  the  technical  for  a  wife  added  to  one  or  several 
wives  ;  tlie  verb  would  then  signify  "for  a  co-wife,"  or  "  to  make  a  co-wife"]. 

(3)  Comp.  Nitzsch,  Si/stem  of  Christian  Doctrine,  ^  114=  :  "Matrimonial  love 
mast  not  destroy  or  perplex  that  to  which  it  is  itself  traceable,  and  which  it 
wishes  to  reproduce  and  propagate." 

(4)  The  further  discussion  of  this  topic  does  not  belong  to  biblical  theology,  but 
piirtly  to  ethics  and  partly  to  ecclesiastical  law.  On  the  whole  subject,  compare  es- 
pecially the  excellent  essay  in  the  Evangel.  Kirchemeitung,  1840,  the  June  and  July 
numbers,  p.  369  ff.  :  "  Ueber  die  verbotenen  Ehen  in  der  Verwandtschaft."— 
Among  the  marriage  laws  of  the  ancient  nations,  that  of  Rome  corresponds  best 
with  tliat  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  is  even  in  some  respects  more  rigorous.  See 
Kossl)ach,  Uidersuchungen  ueber  die  rdmische  Ehe,  p.  420  if.  The  principle  on 
which  marriages  are  forbidden  is  very  clearly  expressed  in  Roman  law  ;  it  lies  in 
the  jiatria  potestas.  The  son  remained  under  the  father's  power  until  the  father's 
death  ;  grandsons  and  granddaughters  honored  their  grandfather  as  their  father. 
Thus  the  children  of  bretliren  took  the  position  of  brothers  and  sisters,  and  hence, 
apparently,  the  marriage  of  cousins  {consohi-ini)  was  not  allowed  in  older  times. 
Roman  law  also  al)Solutely  prohibited  maviinge  with  the  otfspring  of  a  brother  or 
sister  ;  even  marriage  between  uncle  and  niece  was  forl)iddeu.  However,  in  the 
year  49  a.d.,  such  marriage,  wliich  was  counted  incest  until  then,  was  allowed  by 
a  senatus-consultum  because  Claudius  wished  to  marry  Agrippina,  the  daughter 
of  his  brother  Germanicus. 

§104. 

(5)    The  Dissolution  of  Marriage. 

The  laws  touching  the  dissolution  of  marriage  also  show  how  greatly  the  per- 
sonal rights  of  the  wife  are  limited  in  the  Mosaic  legislation.  The  dissolution  of 
marriage  can  take  place  in  ticoways: — 1.  By  the  disruption  in  fact  of  the  mat- 
rimonial bond  by  the  sin  of  adultery;  2.  By  a  divorce  drawn  up  in  a  definite 
form. 

1.  In  the  Mosaic  law,  adultery  is  so  understood  that  it  is  only  committed 
through  the  unchastity  of  a  wife.  Thus,  on  the  part  of  the  husband,  adultery  is 
committed  only  when  he  dishonors  the  free  wife  of  another  ;  in  this  case  both 
are  to  be  punished  with  death  (Lev.  xx.  10  ;  Deut.  xxii.  22).  If,  on  the  con- 
trary, the  adulteress  was  only  another's  slave,  the  punishment  w^as  milder.  Lev. 
xix.  20-22  (probably  corporal  punishment).  Otherwise,  the  crime  of  adultery 
could  not  occur  on  the  part  of  a  liusband,  for  the  wife  had  no  exclusive  right  to 
him.  Therefore  by  simple  unchastity  he  offends  indeed  against  the  law  which 
condemns  as  an  abomination  all  fornication,  and  especially  such  prostitution  as 
was  committed  among  the  neighboring  heathen  nations  in  honor  of  their  divinity 
Lev.  xix.  29  ;  Deut.  xxiii.  18),  but  not  against  his  wife.  On  the  contrary,  the 
breach  by  the  wife  of  the  obligations  of  marriage  was  unconditionally  adultery. 
If  a  woman  was  suspected  of  adultery  without  being  taken  in  the  act,  and  if  no 
testimony  could  be  brouglit  to  prove  the  offence,  it  was  to  be  decided  whether 
she  was  guilty  or  not  guilty  ])y  a  formal  oath  at  the  sanctuary,  and  the  drinking 
of  the  water  of  the  curse,  since  under  the  circumstances  a  judicial  action  could  not 
be  brought  ;  comp.  Num.  v.  11-31.  The  effect  to  be  produced  by  the  water  of 
the  curse  on  the  guilty  wife— the  swelling  of  the  abdomen  and  decaying  of  the 


§    104.]  rUK   DISSOLUTION   OF   MARRIAGE.  231 

tliigli  (which  Josophus  makes  tlie  dislocation  of  the  right  thigh)  corresponds  to 
the  jus  talionis.  Ver.  27  does  not  s;)y  that  the  sentence  of  God  shall  be  manifested 
on  the  spot  (as  was  the  assumption  in  the  German  ordeals).  But  we  must  sup- 
pose an  effect  which  could  only  be  traced  to  the  drinking  of  the  water  of  the 
curse,  and  which  followed  speedily  thereupon,  as  otherwise  there  would  have 
been  no  sure  mark  by  which  to  clear  guiltless  wives.  The  law  rests  on  the  as- 
surance that  the  living  God,  who  dwells  in  the  midst  of  His  people,  will  really 
acknowledge  the  solemn  invocation  of  His  name  at  His  own  command  (1). 

2.  Divorce  (nin'l?).  The  rinht  of  divorce  belongs  to  the  hiisland  only  ;  divorce  is 
therefore  called  the  dismissal  of  a  wife  (H^X  n^E/)  (2).  The  right  of  the  husband  to 
dismiss  his  wife  is  nevertheless  not  formally  sanctioned  by  the  law,  but  is  pre- 
supposed as  existing,  and  is  limited,  not  only  by  the  law  in  Deut.  xxii.  19,  29,  but 
also  (on  this  see  below)  even  in  the  law  of  divorce  in  Deut.  xxiv.,  by  the  addition 
13T  ^1")^..  The  proper  aim  of  the  law  (Deut.  xxiv.  Iff.)  lies  in  the  closing  sen- 
tence, ver.  4.  Ver.  1  does  not  contain  a  command,  and  even  its  last  clause  belongs  to 
the  conditional  clause  (3).  The  Pharisees  indeed  say  (Matt.  xix.  7)  :  Tt  ohv  Mwiktz/c 
tveTELAaro  i^ovvcu  [iLJiliov  aTTuarnniov  anl  a-oJ^vaai.  avrf/v '^  but  the  Lord  answers, 
ver.  8:  'Or;  Mi,wafi%  itpbg  ti)u  aK'A)//)(iKapSi(ni  v/tup  i  tt  i  r  p  e  ij>  £  v  v/ilv  OKoXvaai  ra^ 
yvvaiKag  i'uun.  Deut.  xxiv.  1  shows  that  this  process  was  to  be  necessary  in 
cases  of  divorce.  Since  a  formal  bill  of  divorcement  (np")3  I??,  ver.  1)  was  re- 
quisite for  the  carrying  out  of  a  divorce,  this  might  at  least  often  prevent  a  too 
hasty  repudiation.  The  passage  assigns  as  the  ground  which  renders  divorce  ad- 
missible "^^T  ^Y)y.. — that  is,  "  shamefulness  of  a  thing."'  There  existed  among 
the  Rabbins  two  different  views  concerning  the  meaning  of  this  expression. 
The  school  of  Hillel  understood  the  expression  to  mean  any  matter  of  offence  (4). 
The  school  of  Shmnmai^  on  the  contrary,  did  not,  indeed,  as  has  frequently  been 
erroneously  said,  interpret  the  expression  simply  of  adultery.  Real  adultery  is 
not  to  be  thought  of,  because  in  that  case  not  divorce  but  punishment  followed  ; 
but  they  referred  it  to  really  shameful  conduct,  such  as  unchaste  behavior  and 
the  like.  It  is  not  to  be  admitted  that  Hillel  (as  many  archaeologists  say)  has  hit 
the  meaning  of  the  law  more  correctly.  The  expression  must  certainly  refer  to 
something  loathsome,  comp.  Deut.  xxiii.  15  (5).  If  the  divorced  woman  married 
another  man,  she  might  not,  on  his  death,  or  on  being  divorced  from  him,  re- 
marry the  first  one,  Deut.  xxiv.  3  f.  compared  with  Jer.  iii.  1.  In  David's  con- 
duct, recounted  in  2  Sam.  iii.  14  ff.  (that  David  took  again  Michal,  whom  Saul 
had  given  to  another),  there  is  no  offence  against  the  letter  of  the  law  ;  for  David 
had  not  separated  himself  from  Michal,  but  she  was  unfairly  torn  away  from  him, 
1  Sam.  XXV.  44.  Nevertheless  Saalschiitz  {I.e.  p.  802)  rightly  remarks  that  David's 
conduct  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  consonant  with  the  spirit  of  the  law.  The 
law  does  not  say  whether  the  divorce  might  be  taken  back  if  the  divorced  wife 
did  not  marry  again.     Probably  that  was  lawful. 

It  is  clear  that  this  whole  matter  of  divorce  does  not  correspond  to  the  idea  of 
marriage  proper  to  the  Old  Testament  and  already  expounded  by  us  (§  69,  2)  ; 
and  this  is  expressly  set  forth  by  Christ  in  Matt.  xix.  8.  Moreover,  in  Mai.  ii. 
10-16,  divorce  is  treated  as  a  breach  of  faith:  "  I  hate  putting  away,  saith  Je- 
hovah the  God  of  Israel  "  (ver.  16). 


232  THE  COVENANT  OF  OxOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCKACY.    [§  105. 

(1)  The piniishmoit  of  the  adulteress  lay  in  the  effect  of  the  water  of  the  curse  : 
the  purpose  of  the  divine  decision  is  not  that  the  convicted  person  may  be  then 
handed  over  to  human  judgment  for  the  execution  of  the  punishment  appointed 
for  adultery  in  Lev.  xx.  10,  Deut.  xxii.  22.— This  law  is  one  of  the  series  of 
regulations  by  which  the  purity  of  family  life  was  to  be  protected.  Yet  its 
special  aim  is,  not  merely  to  frighten  frivolous  women  from  leading  a  dissolute 
life,  but  to  protect  the  wife  against  the  wrath  of  the  jealous  husband,  by_  with- 
drawing from  him  the  right  of  taking  the  vindication  of  his  interests  into  his  own 
hand,  and  by  compelling  him  to  submit  his  suspicion  to  the  judgment  of  the 
omniscient  God. 

(2)  According  to  the  Rabbinical  view  (see  Saalschiitz,  3Tos.  Becht,  p.  806),  it 
was  a  matter  of  course  that  the  wife  to  whom  her  husband  denied  what  is  com- 
manded in  Ex.  xxi.  10  might  demand  a  divorce. 

(3)  Deut.  xxiv.  1  ff.  :  "When  a  man  hath  taken  a  wife,  and  married  her,  and 
it  come  to  pass  that  she  find  no  favor  in  his  eyes,  because  he  hath  found  some 
uncleanness  in  her," — then  the  verse  does  not  go  on,  as  Luther  and  A.V.  give 
it,  "then  let  him  write  her  a  bill  of  divorcement,"  but,  continuing  the  condi- 
tional clause,  "  and  he  write  her  a  bill  of  divorcement,  and  give  it  into  her  hand 
and  send  her  out  of  his  house,  and  she  go, "  etc. ;  the  apodosis  begins  only  in  ver.  4. 

(4)  For  example,  if  the  wife  have  let  the  dinner  burn  ;  if  even,  says  Rabbi 
Akiba,  another  please  the  husband  better.  Josephus  holds  the  same  lax  view, 
Ant.  iv.  8.  23  :   Ka6'  daSr/Tr^oiiv  alriac. 

(5)  The  LXX  have  inured,  softened  the  expression  by  the  translation  aax^j/^ov 
npay/ia,  but  have  probably  caught  the  general  meaning  correctly. 

2.    THE   KELATION   OF   PARENTS   TO   CHILDREN    (1). 
§105. 

The  importance  of  this  relation  appears  from  its  being  made,  like  the  relation 
of  marriage,  analogous  to  the  relation  of  Jehovah  toward  His  people  (comp. 
§  82,  1).  In  explaining  the  decalogue,  we  have  already  spoken  of  the  way  in  whicli 
the  command  to  honor  parents  is  ranked  among  the  duties  of  piety  in  the  first 
table  (§  86,  with  note  2)  (2).  The  same  promise  is  given  to  the  honoring  of  parents 
as  to  obedience  to  the  divine  will  in  general ;  comp.  Ex.  xx.  12  with  Deut.  iv.  40, 
vi.  2,  etc.  Breach  of  the  reverence  due  to  parents  is  punished  in  just  the  same 
way  as  offences  against  the  reverence  due  to  God,  Ex.  xxi.  15,  17  (3),  Lev.  xx. 
9. — Still  the  parents  have  only  such  rights  over  their  children  as  are  consistent 
with  the  acknowledgment  of  OocVs  higher  right  of  froperty  [which  is  sealed  by 
circumcision].  This  thought  is  conveyed  in  the  command  to  offer  up  Isaac, 
Gen.  xxii.  (comp.  §  23,  with  note  9),  but  particularly  in  the  ordinanre  with 
reference  to  the  redemption  of  the  first-torn  sons,  who  here  vicariously  take  the 
])lace  of  the  whole  blessing  of  children  hoped  for.  Although  the  tribe  of  Levi 
(comp.  §  93)  was  accepted  in  the  stead  of  all  the  first-born  of  the  people,  the 
first-born  sons  must  nevertheless  be  brought  to  the  sanctuary  when  a  month 
old,  and  there  be  redeemed  by  the  payment  of  five  shekels  ;  see  Num.  xviii. 
16  in  connection  with  Ex.  xiii.  15.  This  presentation  at  the  sanctuary  might  be 
conjoined  with  the  offering  of  purification,  to  be  presented  by  the  woman  on  the 
fortieth  day  after  lier  delivery,  as  appears  from  Luke  ii.  22  ff.  Even  the  human 
right  of  parents  over  their  children  is  limited— a  remarkable  difference  from  the 
laws  of  other  nations — in  particular,  the  father  has  no  right  over  the  life  and 
death  of  his  children  (such  as  Roman  law  concedes)  (4),  but  the  parents  must 


§   105.]  THE    RELATION"    OF    PARENTS   TO    CHILDREN.  233 

bring  a  disobedient,  reckless  son  before  the  magistrates,  Deut.  xxi.  18  (comp. 
§  99,  with  note  2).— The  law  also  requires  that  a  holy  education  in  the  fear  and 
love  of  God  be  given  to  children.  There  are  no  special  precepts  in  the  law  with 
a  view  to  this,  but  it  is  repeated  again  and  again  with  great  emphasis,  that  the 
divine  deeds  in  the  redemption  and  guidance  of  Israel,  and  the  divine  commands, 
are  to  be  impressed  on  the  children  ;  see  Deut.  iv.  9  f.,  vi.  6  f.  (5)  ;  also  ver.  20 
fF.,  xi.  19,  xxxii.  46,  comp.  with  Gen.  xviii.  19  (Ps.  Ixxviii.  3-6,  xliv.  2),  etc. 
The  passover,  in  particular,  was  to  serve  to  hand  down  from  age  to  age  the 
knowledge  of  Israel's  redemption  from  Egyptian  bondage  ;  for  in  Ex.  xii.  26  f., 
xiii.  8,  the  people  are  expressly  directed  to  join  with  the  festival  the  historical 
instruction  of  the  children  in  the  object  of  the  feast.  The  same  direction  is  given, 
xiii.  14  f.,  for  the  presentation  of  the  iirst-born.  We  may  say  that  by  those 
Deuteronomic  regulations  the  basis  was  laid  for  the  memorizing  which  char- 
acterized the  later  Jewish  instruction.  But  the  Pentateuch  knows  nothing  of 
a  scholastic  inculcation  of  the  divine  laws  ;  it  knows  no  formal  religious  instruc- 
tion at  all.  "With  the  excejition  of  the  command,  Deut.  xxxi.  11-13,  that  the 
law  be  read  before  the  assembled  people,  including  the  children  (^tp  =  little 
children),  at  the  feast  of  tabernacles,  there  is  no  direct  provision  for  instruction 
in  the  law  (6).  The  passage  in  Deuteronomy  just  cited  presupposes  that  the 
children  take  part  in  the  festival  pilgrimages,  as  also  the  presence  of  the  sons  and 
daughters  at  the  celebration  of  the  festivals  in  the  sanctuary  is  spoken  of  in  the  law 
of  feasts  in  Deut.  xvi.  11,  14  ;  and  in  particular,  by  the  transference  of  the  cele" 
bration  of  the  passover  to  the  place  of  the  sanctuary,  the  pilgrimage  of  the  whole 
family  thither  was  favored.  Nevertheless,  th-e  law  in  Ex,  xxiii.  17,  Deut.  xvi. 
16,  which  enjoins  the  pilgrimage  of  all  the  male  members  of  the  family,  contains 
no  regulation  in  respect  to  age.  The  Rabbinical  tradition  that  boys  in  their 
twelfth  year  were  bound  to  fulfil  the  law  may  be  very  ancient,  but  the  earliest  in- 
dication of  this  rule  which  we  have  is  in  the  history  of  Jesus  when  He  was  twelve 
years  old,  and  in  Josephus'  statement  {Ant.  v.  10.  4)  that  Samuel  was  called  to  be 
a  prophet  in  the  twelfth  year  of  his  life  (7). 

(1)  Comp.  my  article,  "Padagogik  des  A.  T.,"  in  Schmid's  Pddagog.  EncyUop. 
V.  p.  653  ff. 

(2)  The  theocratic  principle,  that  all  authority  among  the  covenant  people  is  to 
be  regarded  as  an  efflux  of  divine  authority,  and  as  sanctified  by  this,  finds  its 
application  here. 

(3)  Ex.  xxi.  15,  17  :  "  He  who  smiteth  father  or  mother,  and  he  who  curses 
father  and  mother,  shall  surely  be  put  to  death." 

(4)  See  what  is  remarked  on  the  abrogation  of  the  judicial  power  of  the  father 
of  a  family  in  §  98,  and  comp.  Prov.  xix.  18. 

(5)  Deut.  iv.  9  :  "Only  take  heed  to  thyself,  and  keep  thy  soul  diligently,  lest 
thou  forget  the  things  which  thine  eyes  have  seen  :  but  teach  them  thy  sons,  and 
tliy  sons'  sons." — vi.  6  f.  :  "And  these  words,  which  I  command  thee  this  day, 
shall  be  in  thine  heart :  and  thou  shalt  teach  them  diligently  unto  thy  children, 
and  shalt  talk  of  them  when  thou  sittest  in  thine  house,  and  when  thou  walkest 
by  the  way,  and  when  thou  best  down,  and  when  thou  risest  up." 

(6)  Though  it  is  natural  to  conjecture  that  the  scattering  of  the  Levites  among 
the  other  tribes  was  to  serve  to  promote  the  knowledge  of  the  law,  the  Pentateuch 
gives  no  injunction  concerning  this. 

(7)  Singirig  was  another  vehicle  for  the  propagation  of  religious  knowledge, 
which  we  can  show  to  have  been  cultivated  in  Israel  from  the  earliest  period  of 


23-t   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  lOG. 

the  nation's  history.  See  the  particulars  in  the  above-cited  article  p.  671.— It 
was  certainly  a  very  ancient  custom  to  teach  the  youth  songs,  in  order  to  fax  tlie 
memory  of  great  events  and  of  the  heroes  of  past  days  (3  Sam.  i.  18,  comp.  Ps. 
Ix  1)  Also,  with  reference  to  the  song  in  Deut.  xxxii.,  it  is  commanded, 
xxxi.  19  ff.,  that  it  should  be  taught,  in  order  to  serve  in  later  times  as  a  witness 
against  tlie  people.— Lastly,  the  many  local  monaments  scattered  through  the  land 
served  the  rising  generation  as  instructive  witnesses.  Thus  we  read  in  Josh  iv. 
G  f.,  21  f.,  with  reference  to  the  stones  set  up  on  the  banks  of  the  Jordan  :  "  When 
your  children  ask  their  fathers  in  time  to  come,  saying,  what  mean  you  by  these 
stones  ?  then  ve  shall  answer  them,"  etc.  Thus,  in  particular,  the  memories  of 
patrii\rchal  times  were  linked  with  memorable  trees,  wells,  altars,  stone-heaps, 
etc.,  Gen.  xxi.  33 f.,  xxvi.  19  ff.,  xxxiii.  30,  xxxi.  46  ff.,  xxxv.  7,  20,  1.  11. 

3.  THE  LAW  OP  INHERITANCE,  AND   PROVISIONS  FOR  THE  PERMANENCE  OF  FAMILIES 
AND   THEIR   INHERITANCE. 

§  106. 

The  Laio  of  Inheritance.     Laics  concerning  Heiresses  and  the  Levirate  Marriage. 

After  the  father's  death  the  Jirst-lorn  son  is  the  head  of  the  family,  and  there- 
fore in  family  registers  he  is  often  distinguished  by  this  honorable  title  ;  cf.  Num. 
lii.  13,  etc.  By  the  law  in  Deut,  xxi.  17,  the  provision  that  the  first-born  son  is 
to  receive  a  double  inheritance  is  confirmed,  and  therefore,  doubtless,  the  care  of 
the  mother  and  unmarried  sisters,  etc.,  was  incumbent  on  him.  This  regulation 
probably  rested  on  ancient  usage  ;  for  Jacob  followed  it  (comp.  §  25)  when  he 
gave  the  inheritance  of  a  double  tril)e  to  Joseph,  who,  in  the  place  of  Reuben, 
was  invested  with  the  right  of  the  first-born,  comp.  1  Chron,  v.  2.  But  it  is  re- 
markable that  here  again  (comp.  §  69,  2)  the  law,  Deut.  xxi.  15-17,  forbids  others 
to  imitate  what  the  patriarch  did  when  he  gave  preference  to  the  son  of  the  be- 
loved spouse.  For  the  rest,  the  lule  of  inheritance  was  apparently  that  the  other 
sons  inherited  equally.  If  an  Israelite  left  behind  him  no  son,  but  only  daugh- 
ters, the  daughters  came  into  the  inheritance  ;  if  he  had  also  no  daughter,  the 
brother  inherited  ;  in  want  of  a  brother,  the  brother  of  the  father  ;  and  if  he  had 
none,  the  nearest  blood  relation,  Num.  xxvii.  8-11.  But  to  prevent  land  from 
passing  into  the  possession  of  another  tribe,  daughters  who  were  heiresses  might, 
according  to  the  law.  Num.  xxxvi.,  marry  only  men  of  the  tribe  of  their  father,  or 
even,  if  vers.  6  and  8  are  to  be  understood  in  a  narrow  sense,  only  men  of  their 
father's  house  ;  probably  in  as  close  a  relationship  as  was  admissible,  as  the 
heiresses  (the  daughters  of  Zelophehad)  mentioned  in  Num.  xxxvi.  took,  ver.  11, 
the  sons  of  their  father's  brothers  for  husbands. — Side  by  side  with  this  ordinance 
stands  the  Zmra^e  fow,  which,  as  we  see  from  Gen.  xxxviii.,  rested  on  ancient 
custom,  but  was  legally  sanctioned  by  Deut.  xxv.  5-10.  Its  main  provisions  run 
tluis  (ver.  5  f.)  :  "If  brethren  dwell  together,  and  one  of  them  die,  and  have  no 
child,  the  wife  of  the  dead  shall  not  marry  without  (that  is,  out  of  the  family) 
unto  a  stranger  :  her  husband's  brother  shall  go  in  unto  her,  and  take  her  to  him 
to  wife,  and  perform  the  duty  of  an  husband's  brother  unto  her  (03').  And  it 
shall  be,  that  the  first-born  which  slie  bearetii  shiiU  succeed  in  tlie  name  of  his 
brother  which  is  dead,  that  his  name  be  not  put  out  of  Israel."  The  exposition 
of  the  law  is  doubtful.     On  one  view,  the  presupposition  uf  "  dwelling  together" 


§    107.]  THE    PEESERVATION    OF    THE    FAMILY    I2SrHEKLTA:NCE.  235 

is  takeu  to  mean  that  the  brother  who  accepts  the  Lev  irate  duty  has  as  yet  no 
house  of  his  own,  and  is  thus  still  unmarried  (for  this  the  phrase,  "if  brethren 
dwell  together"  is  urged).  According  to  another  view,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  only 
presupposed  that  the  brother  lived  in  the  same  place,  and  was  therefore  in  the 
position  to  take  up  the  Levirate  duty.  The  words,  "if  he  have  no  son,"  are 
imderstood  by  the  Jewish  and  many  Christian  expositors  (among  the  moderns, 
also  Keil  and  Fr.  W.  Schultz)  of  childlessness  in  general,  so  that  if  there  was  a 
daughter  to  be  heiress,  no  Levirate  marriage  would  be  entered  on  ;  and  for  this 
the  expressions  Matt.  xxii.  35  (//?)  i^"^  a-rrepfia)  and  Luke  xx.  28  (dre/cvof)  seem  to 
speak.  Another  view  is  that  the  law  of  Levirate  marriage  took  precedence  of  the 
law  of  heiresses,  so  that  a  daughter  did  not  inherit  if  there  was  still  a  marriage- 
able widow.  Vers.  7-10  of  the  law  decree  a  public  censure  on  the  man  who  would 
not  comply  with  the  Levirate  law  (but  there  was  no  compulsion).  Nothing  ap- 
pears to  be  decreed  against  the  woman  who  would  not  comply  with  the  duty  en- 
joined by  the  Levirate  law,  if  she  did  not  wish  to  marry  again  at  all.  Childless- 
ness was  such  a  disgrace  to  a  woman,  that  it  might  be  j^resumed  that  she  would 
not  refuse  without  sufficient  reason.  If  the  dead  man  left  no  brother  who 
could  enter  on  the  duty  of  marriage,  the  obligation  passed  to  the  nearest  relative, 
who  received  by  the  marriage  also  the  right  of  inheritance.  It  is  true  that  the 
law  makes  no  provision  about  this,  but  it  is  clear  from  the  book  of  Ruth  that  such 
was  the  legal  custom.  That  the  Levirate  law  was  still  in  force  in  the  time  of 
Jesus  is  shown  by  Matt.  xxii.  24  ff.  (and  the  parallel  passages  in  Mark  and  Luke). 

§  107. 
Provisions  concerning  the  Preservation  of  the  Family  Inheritance. 

As  the  law  was  concerned  for  the  continued  existence  of  families,  so,  too,  pro- 
vision was  made  for  the  preservation  of  the  property  on  which  the  subsistence  of 
the  family  depended.  As  far  as  possible,  the  inheritance  was  to  be  preserved 
entire.  Here  the  theocratic  prhiciple  in  its  full  force  came  in,  and  its  application 
to  questions  of  proprietorship  is  expre^ed  in  the  declaration.  Lev.  xxv.  23,  "  The 
land  is  mine  ;  for  ye  are  strangers  and  foreigners  with  me" — that  is,  God,  the 
King  of  the  people,  is  the  real  proprietor  of  the  land,  and  He  gives  it  to  the 
people  only  as  tenants.  Now,  inasmuch  as  each  family  forms  an  integral  part  of 
the  theocracy,  an  inheritance  is  given  to  it  by  Jehovah  for  its  subsistence,  which 
forms,  as  it  were,  an  hereditary  feudal  holding,  and  is  therefore  in  itself  inalien- 
able. Hence  Naboth's  refusal,  1  Kings  xxi.  3  ;  and  hence  the  strong  language 
of  the  prophets  against  the  efforts  of  the  rich  to  enlarge  their  possessions  by  add- 
ing to  their  own  lands  the  inheritance  of  others,  Isa.  v.  8  ff.,  and  in  other  pas- 
sages.— When  an  Israelite  is  compelled  by  poverty  to  alienate  his  inheritance,  this 
is  only  for  a  time ;  the  purchaser  of  the  inheritance  must,  by  Lev.  xxv.  23-27, 
return  it  as  soon  as  the  former  possessor,  or  his  nearest  relative,  redeems  it  again 
('^^D  ;  hence  the  general  legal  principle,  ver.  23  f.,  "The  land  shall  not  be 
sold  i^npif'7  to  extinction," — that  is,  in  such  a  way  that  the  possession  is  for- 
ever forfeited  by  the  original  owner, — "but  in  all  the  land  of  your  possessions  ye 
shall  grant  a  redemption  (H^W)  for  the  land."     In  virtue  of  this  duty  to  redeem 


230    THE  COVENANT  01-'  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.     [§  108. 

the  land,  the  nearest  relative  bears  the  name  of  :^''^pj^  'i^W.  At  the  redeeming  of  the 
land,  the  value  which  the  purchaser  has  had  from  the  use  of  it  year  by  year  is  to  be 
taken  from  the  purchase  money— that  is,  the  land  itself  is  never  to  be  actually  sold, 
but  only  what  it  bore,  and  that  for  a  certain  time.  In  the  year  of  jubilee,  however, 
every  possession  is  to  return  to  the  family  to  whicli  it  originally  belonged,  with- 
out redemption.  With  a  consistent  administration  of  this  law,  a  class  wholly 
without  property  would  have  been  impossible  in  Israel  (1),  agreeably  to  what  is 
proposed  as  the  problem  of  the  theocratic  life,  Deut.  xv.  4,  viz.,  that  there  be  no 
poor  person  in  Israel  ;  though,  indeed,  it  is  acknowledged  in  ver.  11  that  actual 
circumstances  will  continue  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  realization  of  this  ideal. 
Since,  as  has  already  been  mentioned  (§  33),  at  the  settlement  in  the  Holy  Land, 
the  several  clans  dwelt  together  in  a  definite  place,  the  family  became  the  basis  of 
all  social  life  ;  but  because  the  clans  had  always  to  recognize  that  tliey  were 
integral  portions  of  the  covenant  people,  the  lively  consciousness  of  national  aims 
was  preserved  (2)  ;  and  this  all-pervading  influence  of  family  life  upon  the  higher 
theocratico-national  principle  is  represented  particularly  in  the  celebration  of  the 
Passover. 

(1)  This  is  why  the  Socialist  Proudhon  admires  so  greatly  the  Mosaic  law  of 
property.  Compare  his  essay,  "The  Observance  of  Sunday  considered  with 
reference  to  Public  Health,  Morals,  Family  and  Civil  Life,"  in  the  German  transla- 
tion, 1850,  p.  25. 

(2)  Baumgarten  {Die  Geschichte  Jesu,  p.  88  f.)  has  rightly  observed,  that  in  the 
theocracy  two  forms  of  one-sidedness  are  avoided, — the  one-sidedness  of  a  tribal 
constitution,  in  which  the  tribes  never  attain  national  unity  ;  and  the  one-sided- 
ness of  a  national  constitution  in  which  domestic  life,  and  with  it  an  essential 
part  of  society,  are  sacrificed  to  tlie  welfare  of  the  state,  as  was  the  case  in  the 
laws  of  Lycurgus.  "  In  Israel,  the  divine  guidance  is  manifest  in  the  fact  that 
both  forms,  the  house  and  the  kingdom,  are  so  planned  from  the  beginning  that 
they  mutually  penetrate  and  embrace  each  other." 

§  108. 

The  Avenging  of  Blood  (1). 

Blood  revenge  is  connected  with  the  laws  last  discussed,  inasmuch  as  it  may  be 
regarded  from  one  point  of  view  as  serving  for  the  preservation  of  the  entireness 
of  families. — Blood  revenge,  generally  speaking,  takes  place  where  the  members 
of  a  family  or  the  next  relative  of  a  murdered  man  have  the  right  and  the  duty 
of  exercising  retribution  on  the  manslayer.  In  the  Old  Testament,  it  is  taken  for 
granted  as  a  very  ancient  custom  (2).  After  Gen.  ix.  C,  in  which  is  expressed 
generally  the  precept  that  he  who  sheddeth  man's  blood,  by  man  shall  his  blood 
be  shed,  the  first  indication  of  the  avenging  of  blood  is  found  in  xxvii.  45  (3). 
Where  as  yet  there  is  no  political  life,  or  where,  at  least,  such  life  is  still  in  the 
first  elements  of  development,  the  expiation  of  injury  to  personal  rights  devolves, 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  on  the  zeal  of  the  family  (4).  The  Mosaic  legislation 
retained  this  feature,  but  subordinated  the  execution  of  the  avenging  of  blood  to 
the  theocratic  principle.  If,  according  to  the  most  ancient  Hellenic  view,  the 
murderer,  as  such,  commits  no  crime  against  tlie  divinity  or  against  civil  society 
(5),  but  merely  against  tlie  family,  Mosaism,  on  tlie  contrary,  in  virtue  of  its  idea 


§    108.]  THE    AVEiy^GING    OF    BLOOD.  237 

of  man  as  the  divine  image  (comp.  §  68),  discerns  in  murder,  first  of  all,  a  transgres- 
sion against  the  Creator  and  Lord  of  human  life,  Gen.  ix.  5  f.,  whic'imust  be  atoned 
for,  Num.  xxxv.  33,  by  the  extermination  of  the  guilty  person  from  the  theocracy, 
which  is  desecrated  by  the  guilt  of  blood  (6).  God  Himself  is  the  proper  avenger 
of  blood  (Gen.  I.e.),  the  D'P'i  iJ'^T  (Ps.  ix.  13,  comp.  2  Chron.  xxiv.  22),  to  -whom 
the  shed  blood  cries  for  vengeance.  Gen.  iv.  10.  Thus  the  avenging  of  blood 
becomes  a  divine  command  ;  it  is  not  merely  a  matter  of  honor,  but  a  duty  of 
religion.  But  because  the  family,  the  protection  of  the  integrity  of  which  is  the 
business  of  theocratic  justice,  is  injured  at  the  same  time  by  the  murder,  the  ex- 
ecution of  the  avenging  of  blood  is  transferred  to  that  relative  on  whom  in  gen- 
eral the  restoration  of  injuries  done  to  the  integrity  of  the  family  is  incumbent 
(comp.  §  106  f.),  and  who  thus  has  to  redeem,  the  blood  taken  from  the  family  by 
the  crime  committed.  Hence  the  name  of  the  avenger  of  blood,  C^H  bxj,  Num. 
xxxv.  19,  Deut.  xix.  6,  12  ;  also  7KJ  absolutely,  Num.  xxxv.  12,  Job  xix.  25  (7). 
To  see  that  the  avenging  of  blood  was  really  executed  was  the  business  of  the 
whole  clan,  as  is  clear  from  2  Sam.  xiv.  7  (8). — But  further,  with  reference  to 
the  avenging  of  blood,  the  following  provisions  are  found  in  Ex.  xxi.  12-14, 
Num.  xxxv.  9-34,  Deut.  xix.  1-13  : 

1.  In  Num.  xxxv.  two  hinds  of  murder  are  distinguished  in  reference  to  which 
the  avenging  of  blood  is  commanded  :  (a)  vers.  16-18,  if  one  slays  another  with 
an  instrument  of  iron,  or  a  stone,  or  with  wood,  wherewith  a  man  when  he  takes 
it  in  his  hand  (others,  because  it  fills  the  hand)  can  kill  another — that  is,  if  any 
one  strikes  another  in  such  a  way  that  death  may  be  foreseen  to  be  the  probable 
consequence  ;  (b)  ver.  20  f.,  if  one  has  slain  another  out  of  hatred,  or  by  design, 
or  out  of  enmity,  in  which  case  the  means  by  which  death  was  brought  about  is 
indifferent  (9).  On  the  other  hand,  in  order  to  shelter  from  vengeance  him  who 
had  slain  a  man  undesignedly,  H'^l^  xS|  (ver.  22  ;  Ex.  xxi.  13),  without  intending 
to  hurt  his  neighbor  (comp.  Num.  xxxv.  23),  and  inadvertently,  rijrn-'iaa  (Deut. 
xix.  4,  etc.),  the  law  provided  for  the  selection  of  six  free  cities,  three  on  the  east, 
and  three  on  the  west  side  of  the  Jordan  (Deut.  iv.  41  ff.;  Josh.  xx.  1-9).  The 
manslayer  who  fled  into  one  of  these  must  be  protected  from  the  avenger  of  blood 
who  pursued  him,  after  a  provisional  cognizance  of  the  case  by  the  elders  of  the 
free  town  (Josh.  xx.  4),  until  the  community  (ni^.) — that  is,  the  community  of  the 
place  where  the  murder  was  committed,  Num.  xxxv.  24  f. — had,  through  their 
elders,  examined  the  matter,  Deut.  xix.  12  f.  (8).  If  the  accused  person  was 
proved  guilty  of  intentional  murder,  he  must  be  given  over  to  the  avenger  of 
blood,  and  even  the  altar  could  not  protect  him  (Ex.  xxi.  14).  In  the  opposite 
case,  however,  he  was  obliged  to  remain  in  the  city  of  refuge  until  the  death  of 
the  high  priest  in  whose  time  the  murder  had  occurred,  Num.  xxxv.  28,  Josh. 
XX.  6.  If  he  quitted  it  earlier,  the  avenger  of  blood  was  permitted  to  kill  him, 
Num.  xxxv.  27,  as  was  allowed  before,  in  his  flight  to  the  city  of  refuge,  Deut. 
xix.  6. — The  meaning  of  the  banishment  to  the  city  of  refuge  was  certainly  not 
merely  that  of  an  ordinary  punishment  of  banishment  ;  but  the  manslayer  was 
to  be  withdrawn  from  general  intercourse  with  the  people  until  the  expiation  of 
his  act  was  completed.  Expiation  was  absolutely  necessary,  on  the  analogy  of 
the  sin-offering,  Lev.  iv.  1  ff.,  even  for  blood  shed  undesignedly  (9).  This  ex- 
piation seems  to  lie  in  the  death  of  the  high  priest,  which  does  the  same  for  his 


238   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  108. 

period  of  office  as  his  function  on  tlie  great  day  of  atonement  does  for  a  single 
year  (10). 

2.  For  intentional  murder,  there  was  no  other  expiation  than  the  blood  of  the 
manslayer,  Num.  xxxv.  31,  33  (11).  The  jus  talionis  is  here  maintained  in  the 
most  stringent  sense  ;  every  substitute  for  the  punishment  of  death  is  refused 
(12).  Nor  can  exemption  from  residence  in  the  city  of  refuge  in  consequence  of 
accidental  murder  be  purchased,  ver.  32. — This  is  essentially  different  from  the 
usual  custom  of  other  ancient  nations,  which  permitted  the  manslayer  to  satisfy 
the  injured  family  by  making  compensation  {-oivf]  among  the  Greeks),  or  Wergeld 
(among  the  Germans)  (13). — Nevertheless,  the  Mosaic  law  does  not  ordain  any- 
thing against  the  relatives  who  neglected  the  avenging  of  blood. 

3.  The  avenging  of  blood  falls  upon  the  doer  alone.  Nowhere  does  the  legis- 
lation of  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  allow  the  avenger  of  blood  to  lay 
hands  also  on  the  family  of  the  murderer  (Ex.  xx.  5  is  not  a  case  in  point).  That 
an  opposite  custom  may  often  have  prevailed  is  probable  ;  and  on  the  contrary, 
Deut.  xxiv.  16  (comp.  2  Kings  xiv.  6)  may  be  regarded  as  a  siqyplement,  not  (as 
some  think)  a  mitigation,  of  the  earlier  legal  provisions. — We  cannot  certainly 
determine  how  long  blood-revenge  existed  among  the  people.  It  is  clear,  from 
2  Sam.  xiv.  6-11,  that  it  was  still  in  existence  and  in  full  force  in  David's  time. 

(1)  Compare  my  article  "Blutrache,"  in  Herzog's  B.B.  [revised  in  2d  ed.  by 
Delitzsch  ;  Riehm,  art.  "  Blutracher"  in  his  Handworterhuch]. 

(2)  Not  yet  Gen.  iv.  14  :  "I  shall  be  a  fugitive  and  a  vagabond,  and  every 
one  that  findeth  me  shall  kill  me."  These  words  of  Cain  are  only  to  be  under- 
stood as  an  expression  of  anguish  of  conscience. 

(3)  The  words  of  Rebekah  (Gen.  xxvii.  45),  "  Why  should  I  be  deprived  also 
of  you  both  in  one  day?"  mean,  that  if  Jacob  were  slain  by  the  hand  of  Esau, 
Esau  would  be  slain  by  the  avenger  of  blood. 

(4)  Thus  among  the  Arabians,  the  ancient  Greeks,  Romans,  Germans,  etc. — 
Compare,  in  general,  Tobien,  The  avenging  of  Mood  according  to  the  ancient  Russian 
law,  in  comparison  uith  the  avenging  of  Mood  among  the  Israelites,  Arabians,  Greeks, 
Romans,  and  Germans,  Dorpat,  1840.  On  the  avenging  of  blood  among  the  Arabs, 
see  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Mos.  Recht,  ii.  §  134.  (With  the  Arabian  notion  that  un- 
avenged blood  remains  without  sinking  into  the  ground,  etc.,  see  Schultens  on 
exc.  Ham.  pp.  416,  466  ;  compare  in  the  Old  Testament,  Isa.  xxvi.  21,  Ezek.  xxiv. 
7  f.,  Job  xvi.  18.)  On  the  avenging  of  blood  among  the  Greeks  of  Homer's  time, 
see  Nagelsbach,  Homer.  Theol.  p.  292  ff.  On  traces  of  the  same  in  ancient  Italy, 
see  Rein,  Kriminalrecht  der  Rihner,  p.  36  ff.  ;  and  on  the  difference  between  the 
Roman  and  German  view,  see  Osenbriigge,  in  the  Kieler  Philolog.  Studien,  1841, 
p.  234  ff. 

(5)  Homer  knows  nothing  of  an  atonement  for  murder  due  to  the  gods  ;  see 
Nagelsbach,  I.e.  ;  comp.  Lobeck,  Aglaophamus,  i.  p.  301  ;  and  also  at  the  same 
time,  in  limitation,  the  remarks  of  Schomann,  ^^!<cliylos  Eumeniden,  p.  66  f. 

(6)  Human  life  is  so  sacred,  that  even  the  animal  by  which  a  man  is  killed 
must  be  stoned,  Ex.  xxi.  28  ff.  ;  comp.  Gen.  ix.  5. 

(7)  Compare  Bottcher,  De  inferis,  §  322. 

(8)  These  sentences  state  as  concisely  as  possible  how  the  three  different  pas- 
sages are  probably  to  be  combined. — Comp.  Hengstenberg,  Introduction  to  the 
Pentateuch,  vol.  ii.  ;  Ranke  gives  another  combimxtion,  Unters.  uber  den  Pen- 
tateuch, ii.  p.  314  f. 

(9)  On  the  later  Hellenic  view,  see  Scluimann,  I.e.  p.  69,  and  others.  See 
Osenbriigge,  I.e.,  on  tlie  Roman  expiatory  sacrifice  of  a  ram  for  unintentional 
murder. 


§    109.]  THE    PRINCIPLES    OF   THE    RIGHTS    OF    BONDMEN.  230 

(10)  This  is  the  one  view  of  the  matter  taken,  for  example,  by  Keil.  [More 
correctly,  perhaps,  Riehm  :  "  With  the  high  priest's  entrance  upon  his  office  begins, 
as  at  the  coronation  of  a  new  king,  a  new  period,  in  which  the  legal  consequences 
of  much  that  occurred  in  the  preceding  reign  are  no  longer  recognized."] 

(11)  Num.  XXXV.  33  :  "Blood  defileth  the  land  ;  and  the  land  cannot  be  cleansed 
of  the  blood  that  is  shed  therein,  but  by  the  blood  of  him  that  shed  it." 

(13)  A  murder  could  not  be  made  amends  for  with  all  the  treasures  in  tlie 
world,  even  if  the  murdered  man  had  forgiven  the  murderer  before  his  death. 
Maimonides,  Hilch.  rots.  i.  4,  3Iore  Neboch.  iii.  41. 

(13)  Compare  Lobeck,  I.e.  p.  301.  The  Koran  itself  {Sur.  ii.  173  ff.)  admits  a 
stipulated  mitigation  of  blood-revenge. 

4.    THE  RIGHTS   OP   SERVANTS   IN  THE   HOUSE  (1). 
§   109. 

Bondage  in  the  Time  of  the  Patriarchs.     The  Principles  of  the  Rights  of  Bondmen. 

The  Old  Testament,  in  ascribing  to  man  the  nature  and  dignity  of  one  made  in  the 
image  of  God  as  his  inalienable  and  fundamental  characteristic, — in  teaching,  fur- 
ther, the  descent  of  all  mankind  from  one  blood,  and  so  representing  them  as  a 
race  of  brethren, — pronounces  in  advance  a  condition  without  personal  rights, 
such  as  is  seen  in  slavery  among  the  heathen,  to  be  inadmissible.  It  is  designat- 
ed as  a  curse  when  a  race  falls  into  slavery,  Gen.  ix.  25,  27.  Nevertheless,  the 
existence  of  a  state  of  servitude  in  virtue  of  which  domestics  ("T^?!')  form  a  por- 
tion of  property,  like  the  herds  (Gen.  xxiv.  35,  xxvi.  14),  is  presupposed  in  the 
Old  Testament.  Abraham  possesses  a  number  of  slaves.  The  slaves  lorn  in  the 
house  (r>'3  "'T?',  a  term  which  refers  at  the  same  time  to  transmission  of  servitude). 
Gen.  xiv.  14  (2),  are  distinguished  from  those  bought  with  money  (^Ql*  ^JpP),  xvii. 
23  ff.  (3).  Nevertheless,  how  elevated  the  position  of  the  slave  is  in  the  time  of 
the  patriarchs,  is  shown  specially  in  the  beautiful  picture  of  Abraham's  trusted 
servant,  drawn  in  chap.  xxiv.  This  servant  is  probably  the  same  person  as  the 
Eliezer  whom  Abraham  (xv.  2  f.)  for  want  of  a  son  had  appointed  as  his  heir  (2). 
But  it  was  of  the  greatest  importance  that,  according  to  chap,  xvii.,  at  the  intro- 
duction of  circumcision,  all  the  slaves— not  simply  those  who  stood  nearer  to  the 
family  as  being  born  in  the  house,  but  also  those  who  had  been  bought  in  foreign 
parts— should  receive  likewise  this  sign  of  covenant  consecration,  and  thereby  a 
share  in  the  dignity  of  the  chosen  race,  and  in  the  divine  promise  given  to  it  (3). 

The  rights  of  the  class  of  servants  are  more  exactly  defined  by  the  law  ;  and  in 
this  connection  a  distinction  is  made  betAveen  those  servants  who  were  Israelites 
by  birth,  and  the  slaves  obtained  by  purchase  or  as  booty  from  other  nations.  These 
regulations  rest  on  a  twofold  principle :  1.  Because  Israel  is  the  people  of  Jehovah's 
property,  whom  He  redeemed  from  Egyptian  bondage,  the  whole  body  of  this 
people  are  Jehovah's  servants,  and  are  thereby  exempted  from  all  hnnan  servi- 
tude. After  their  God  had  broken  the  yoke  which  burdened  them,"  and  led  them 
out  *'  upright"  [erect],  they  were  never  more  to  bend  under  the  yoke  of  slavery, 
nor  be  sold  as  slaves  (Lev.  xxv.  42,  55,  xxvi.  13  ;  conip.  §  83)  (4).  By  tliis 
principle,  bondage,  in  a  strict  sense,  was  for  Israel  completely  done  away  with. 
Put  since  the  law  leaves  cases  open  in  which  one  Israelite  might  fall  into  the  ser- 


240   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  110. 

vice  of  another  in  a  legal  way,  instructions  are  laid  down  by  which  a  return  to 
the  independent  position  which  alone  corresponds  to  the  dignity  of  a  theocratic 
burgher  is  secured  to  those  who  have  fallen  into  servitude.  On  the  contrary, 
with  reference  to  the  whole  profane  mass  of  the  Gentiles,  slavery  is  recognized  as 
allowable,  Lev.  xxv.  44  ff.  But  apart  from  the  fact  that  a  certain  share  in  the 
blessings  of  the  covenant  people  is  also  secured  to  the  heathen  slaves,  they  have 
the  advantage,  2.  of  the  principle  winch  is  inculcated  in  a  multitude  of  passages 
as  the  standard  for  the  treatment  of  servants— namely,  that  the  Israelites,  since 
they  themselves  were  at  one  time  slaves  and  strangers  in  Egypt,  and  know  how 
such  persons  feel,  are  to  treat  servants  and  strangers  in  a  humane  way,  and  show 
by  this  means  their  thanks  to  God,  who  redeemed  them  from  Egyptian  oppression 
(Ex.  xxii.  20,  xxiii.  9  ;  Deut.  v.  14  f.,  x.  19,  xv.  15,  xvi.  11  f.,  xxiv,  18,  22)  (5). 

(1)  Die  Verlialtnme  (ler  Sklmen  lei  den  alien  Ilehvdern  nach  hiU.- und  thnhnudi- 
schen  Quellen  dargestellt,  Kopenhagen,  1859,  a  work  by  Mielziner,  is  a  good  mono- 
graph on  this  subject.  A  survey  of  the  relevant  literature  is  also  given  in  it,  ]). 
4  f.;  comp.  also  my  article,  "  Sklaverei  bci  den  Hebriiern,"  in  Herzog's  H.  E.  xiv. 
p.  464  ff. — On  this  topic  it  is  of  special  interest  to  compare  the  rights,  or  absence 
of  rights,  of  slaves  in  other  nations. 

(2)  The  patriarchal  form  of  life  brings  the  slaves  nearer  to  the  family,  and  thus 
the  servile  class  become  possessed  of  the  moral  spirit  of  the  family,  in  virtue  of 
which  the  relation  between  masters  and  servants  is  shaped  into  a  relation  of  real 
respect  and  affection. — Compare  what  Nagelsbach  has  remarked,  Homer.  Theol. 
p.  271  ff.,  on  the  character  of  slavery  in  Homer. 

(3)  The  full  consequences  of  the  anthropological  presuppositions  of  the  Old 
Testament  were  certainly  not  realized,  even  at  a  later  time.  But  while  in  hea- 
thenism, and  especially  in  cultivated  heathenism,  slavery  sinks  more  and  more  to 
the  deepest  degradation  of  human  nature,  Mosaism  guards  its  humane  character 
by  at  least  limiting  slavery,  so  far  as  it  permits  it,  by  legal  regulations. 

(4)  [Lev.  xxv.  42  :  "For  they  are  my  servants  whom  I  brought  forth  out  of 
the  land  of  Egypt  :  they  shall  not  be  sold  as  bondmen."  The  slavery  of  an  Israel- 
ite was  contradictory  to  Jehovah's  exclusive  right  of  property  in  his  people.] 

(5)  The  various  regulations  witl)  reference  to  the  rights  of  servants  form  one  of 
the  most  difficult  parts  of  the  legislation.  It  is  on  them  in  particular  that  the  as- 
sertion is  founded,  that  the  legislation  in  Deuteronomy  stands  in  absolute  con- 
tradiction to  that  in  Leviticus.     See  the  solutions  proposed  in  the  next  section. 


§110. 

(n)  The  Regulations  concerning  Hebrew  Servants. 

An  Israelite  might  in  a  legal  way  become  a  slave,  either  by  selling  himself  on  ac- 
count of  poverty,  Lev.  xxv.  39,  47,  or  by  being  sold  ly  jtidicial  decree  on  account 
of  inability  to  make  compensation  for  a  theft  committed,  Ex.  xxii,  2.  In  the  lat- 
ter case,  however,  we  must  conclude  from  the  context  of  the  law  that  it  was  not 
lawful  to  sell  him  to  foreigners.  On  the  usual  view  taken  by  almost  all  bibiical 
archa3ologists  (including  Saalschiitz  and  Keil),  the  creditor  had  a  right  to  sell 
debtors  or  their  children  wlien  they  were  unable  to  pay  their  debts.  This  view 
must  in  any  case  be  qualified,  for  an  arhitrary  course  of  the  creditor  against  the 
person  and  children  of  the  debtor  can  have  no  support  in  the  law,  and  would, 
indeed,  be  in  decided  contradiction  to  the  laws  relating  to  pledges  iri  Deuteronomy, 


§   110.]     THE   REGULATIONS   CONCERNING   HEBREW   SERVANTS.  241 

The  law  (Deut.  xxiv.  iO)  forbids  the  creditor  to  enter  the  house  of  the  debtor  in 
order  to  choose  a  pledge  arbitrarily.  It  forbids  him  (Ex.  xxii.  25  f.;  Deut.  xxiv. 
13)  to  keep  the  pledged  garment  of  a  poor  man  over  night ;  "for  it  is  his  only 
covering,  his  garment  for  his  skin  ;  for  what  can  he  lie  on  ?  and  if  he  call  on  me 
I  will  hear  him,  for  I  am  gracious."  It  forbids  the  pledging  of  a  debtor's  mill, 
because  that  would  be  pledging  the  "  soul"  (that  is,  something  indispensably  re- 
quisite for  the  support  of  life),  Deut.  xxiv.  6.  And  could  this  humane  law  have 
given  up  the  person  of  the  impoverished  debtor  or  his  children  to  the  arbitrary 
will  of  the  creditor  ?— There  is  less  difficulty  in  admitting  that  the  lawfulness  of 
the  judicial  adjudication  of  an  insolvent  debtor  is  not  excluded  by  Lev.  xxv.  .89, 
47.  However,  the  passage  probably  only  speaks  of  an  Israelite  who  sells  himself 
because  he  is  no  longer  in  a  position  to  remain  independent.  From  the  other 
Old  Testament  books,  also,  we  can  deduce  no  sufficient  proof  of  this  common 
opinion.  Prov.  xxii.  7  does  not  relate  to  this,  since  the  proverb  expresses  quite 
generally  the  dependence  of  the  debtor  on  the  creditor.  3  Kings  iv,  1,  Amos  ii. 
G,  viii.  6,  certainly  prove  the  practice  of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  ;  but  the 
case  mentioned  in  the  first  passage,  that  a  widow's  two  sons  were  to  be  taken 
away  from  her  by  a  creditor,  certainly  cannot  be  considered  as  agreeable  to  the 
meaning  of  the  Mosaic  law,  while  the  passage  in  Amos  calls  it  a  gross  offence  to 
deliver  up  poor  persons  to  slavery  on  account  of  small  debts.  Besides  these  pas- 
sages. Job  xxiv.  9,  Neh.  v.  5,  Isa.  1.  1,  and  Matt,  xviii.  35  are  wont  to  be  quoted 
as  proof-texts.  The  passage  in  Job  rebukes  the  heartlessness  which  takes  away 
as  pledge  a  babe  from  the  breast  of  its  mother.  With  Neh.  v.  5  is  to  be  taken 
ver.  8,  where  Nehemiah  condemns,  in  the  strongest  language,  the  mode  of  pro- 
ceeding by  which  the  poor  were  compelled  to  give  up  their  children  to  be  slaves 
to  cover  their  debts.  And  the  two  last-named  passages,  also,  are  proofs  only  of 
the  common  practice,  not  of  its  lawfulness,  which  is  denied  also  by  the  Rabbinic 
tradition  (comp.  Alting,  Acad,  dissert.,  in  0pp.  V.  333). 

There  are  tico  different  ordinances  in  the  Pentatetich  concerning  the  %<;ay  in  which 
an  Israelite  tcho  had  fallen  into  slavery  was  to  he  treated, — one  in  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant,  Ex.  xxi.  1-11,  and  Deut.  xv.  13-18  ;  and  another  in  Lev.  xxv.  39-55. 

1.  The  first  two  laws  make  the  following  provisions  : — {a)  If  an  Israelite  has 
bought  one  of  his  fellow  country-folk,  whether  male  or  (see  the  passage  in  Deut- 
eronomy, and  Jer.  xxxiv.  9  flf.)  female,  the  time  of  service  shall  last  only  six  years. 
This  limitation  of  time,  which  reminds  us  of  Jacob's  seven  years'  service  (Gen, 
xxix.  18),  rested  probably  on  ancient  usage  ;  in  the  law,  however,  it  is  made  mainly 
in  imitation  of  the  period  of  the  Sabbath,  as  is  indicated  in  the  connections  of  tlie 
passage  in  Deuteronomy.  As  a  day  of  rest  follows  six  days  of  labor,  and  a  festival 
year  follows  six  years  of  cultivation  of  land,  so,  in  like  manner,  the  seventh  year 
shall  bring  to  the  servant  freedom  from  bondage.  Only  the  year  of  emancipation 
did  not  fall  exactly  at  the  same  time  as  the  Sabbath  year  ;  although,  according  to 
Jer.  xxxiv.  8  ff.,  the  Sabbatical  year  once  gave  occasion  for  the  emancipation  of 
Hebrew  servants  in  the  time  [perhaps]  of  Zedekiah. — (b)  If  the  servant  entered 
alone  into  service,  he  became  free  alone  ;  but  if  he  entered  married,  his  wife  be- 
came free  with  him.  If,  on  the  contrary,  his  master  gave  him  a  wife,  and  she 
bear  him  children,  the  wife  and  children  remain  the  master's,  and  he  goes  out 
free  alone  (1).     The  law  in  Deuteronomy  commands  the  master  to  assist  the  freed 


242   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  110. 

man  with  oifts  of  produce  (from  the  flock,  tlic  tlircshing-floor,  and  the  winepress),  a 
provision  by  which  tlie  beginning  of  an  independent  support  was  facilitated. — (c) 
If  the  servant  will  not  go  free,  because  he  loves  his  master  or  his  wife  and  children, 
the  master  shall  bring  him  before  the  court  ;  probably  for  the  purpose  of  putting 
the  complete  voluntariness  of  the  servant's  determination  beyond  all  doubt. 
Then  the  master  is  to  bring  the  servant  to  the  door  or  the  door-post,  and  pierce 
(i'¥1)  his  ear  (probably  the  right  one)  with  an  awl,  by  which  ceremony  the  ser- 
vant is  now  bound  to  permanent  service.  According  to  Deut.  xv.  17  a  maid  was 
to  be  treated  in  the  same  way.  The  connection  in  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy 
shows  that  the  door  of  the  house  in  which  the  servant  is  to  serve  is  meant, 
although  that  passage  does  not  mention  appearing  before  the  court  at  all  (2).  As 
the  meaning  of  the  ceremony  in  general  is  obligation  to  permanent  obedience, 
the  symbolic  act  is  applied  to  the  organ  of  hearing,  and  that  by  a  sign  which  re- 
mains forever.  The  affixing  the  ear  to  the  door-post,  caused  by  piercing,  denotes 
that  the  servant  is  bound  permanently  to  the  house  (3).  Although  a  moral  mo- 
tive is  given  as  the  basis  of  this  proceeding,  there  is  undeniably  something 
degrading  in  it. — The  meaning  of  the  i^/iv,  iu  Ex.  xxi.  6,  Deut.  xv.  17,  is  disputed . 
The  expression  evidently  refers  properly  to  lifelong  servitude  (because  the  sym- 
bolic action  ordained  imprinted  on  the  servant  an  indelible  sign).  The  limitation 
of  the  time  of  service  by  the  year  of  jubilee  (so  Josephus,  Ant.  iv.  8.  28,  and  the 
Talmudico-Rabbinic  tradition)  results  only  from  the  combination  with  the  law 
in  Leviticus. — (d)  In  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  Ex.  xxi.  7-11,  a  law  follows 
which  is  to  meet  the  case  of  an  Israelite  who  sells  his  daughter  to  another  on  the 
presupposition  that  she  is  to  become  the  wife  or  concubine  of  the  purchaser  or  of 
his  son.  Here  something  quite  different  from  Deut.  xv.  12  ff.  is  spoken  of  ;  the 
latter  law  treats  of  the  way  in  which  a  Hebrew  woman  is  to  be  kept  who  does  not 
enter  the  service  of  a  man  for  the  purpose  of  marriage  (4). 

Side  by  side  with  the  two  ordinances  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  and  of  Deuter- 
onomy already  explained,  there  is  one  that  runs  quite  differently,  in  connection 
with  the  law  of  the  jubilee  year.  Lev.  xxv.,  the  contents  of  which  are  as  follows  : 
—(a)  Vers.  39-43.  Here  the  case  is  put  of  an  Israelite  selling  himself  to  another 
Zvaelite,  because,  after  parting  with  his  possession  of  land,  he  cannot  even  gain  a 
livelihood  like  a  stranger  (who  earns  a  sustenance  by  working  for  hire).  In  this 
case  the  master  is  not  to  cause  him  to  perform  the  work  of  a  slave,  but  is 
rather  to  impose  on  him  such  work  as  is  demanded  of  a  day-laborer,  and  to  treat 
him  generally  as  such  (5).  This  relation  is  only  to  last  until  the  year  of  jubilee,  in 
which  the  servant  and  his  children  (6)  are  freed,  and  return  to  their  own  people 
and  the  inheritance  of  their  fathers.  (Therefore  a  portion  from  the  master  is  in 
this  case  not  necessary.)— (&)  Vers.  47-55.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  impov- 
erished Israelite  sells  himself  to  'A  foreigner  dwelling  in  the  land,  he  may  likewise  be 
treated  only  as  a  day-laborer,  and  in  this  case  he  may  be  redeemed  at  any  time  (7). 
The  purchase-money  is  to  be  reckoned  by  the  number  of  years  which  pass  from  the 
time  of  purchase  to  the  year  of  jubilee  (and  the  calculation  is  based  on  the  amount 
of  wages  which  a  day-laborer  can  claim).  In  the  case  of  redemption,  the  value 
of  the  service  already  given  (calculated  on  the  same  principle)  is  deducted  from 
the  purchase-money.  In  the  year  of  jubilee,  however,  the  servant  and  his  family 
go  out  quite  free.    Now  this  law  in  Leviticus  stands,  without  any  attempt  to  har- 


§    110.]     THE    REGULATIONS    CONCERNING    HEBREW    SERVANTS.  245 

monize  them,  side  by  side  with  the  regulations  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  and 
of  Deuteronomy,  just  mentioned.  Quite  various  views  in  regard  to  the  relation 
in  which  these  stand  to  each  other  have  been  advanced.  [The  attempts  of  the 
Rabbins  and  of  Saalschiitz  to  harmonize  them,  by  assuming  that  the  parallel  laws 
refer  to  different  persons,  are  a  failure.  According  to  the  view  of  many,  e.g. 
Ewald  and  Dillmann,  the  different  regulations  were  made  at  different  periods. 
According  to  Dillmann  on  Lev.  xxv.  39  ff.,  the  law  in  Leviticus  relates  to  those 
slaves  who  became  such  by  the  sale  of  themselves  through  poverty,  to  whom, 
therefore,  a  manumission,  to  which  they  were  entitled  according  to  ancient  law 
(Ex.  xxi.),  could  have  been  of  no  use,  because  they  would  have  returned  into  the 
same  helpless  condition,  and  who  consequently  voluntarily  remained  slaves  be- 
yond the  sixth  year.  In  regard  to  these  the  law  provided  that  even  such  volun- 
tary servitude  should  not  continue  in  any  case  longer  than  up  to  the  year  of 
jubilee,  at  which  time  manumission  and  the  recovery  of  the  family  inheritance 
would  both  take  place.  Consequently  the  phrase  "forever"  in  Ex.  xxi.  6  would 
be  restricted  by  the  law.  Deuteronomy,  regarding  the  year  of  jubilee  as  im- 
practicable, supplies  what  Leviticus  has  in  view  by  the  recovery  of  one's  posses- 
sion, by  requiring  that  the  servant  to  be  made  free  in  the  seventh  year  shall  be 
provided  for,  and  then  consents  to  leave  him  who  does  not  wish  to  be  made  free  to 
be  a  slave  for  life  (ppv],  forever).  ]  The  incompleteness  of  the  command  in  ver. 
39  ff.  is  sufficiently  intelligible  if  the  provisions  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  were 
still  in  force  along  with  it.  The  apparent  contradiction  between  the  two  laws  is 
to  be  solved,  with  J.  D.  Michaelis  {Mos.  Eecht,  %  137),  Hengstenberg  {Genuineness 
of  the  Pentateuch,  li.  p.  362),  and  others,  by  supposing  that  during  the  first 
forty-four  years  of  a  period  of  jubilee,  the  emancipation  of  servants  was  entirely 
regulated  by  the  enactment  in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  (and  so  took  place  after 
six  years)  ;  while,  on  the  contrary,  the  year  of  jubilee  brought  freedom  to  those 
who  fell  into  servitude  in  the  last  years  of  the  period  of  the  jubilee,  even  if  they 
had  not  served  for  six  years.  Hence  the  law  in  Leviticus  proceeds  on  the  presup- 
position that  the  servant  will  live  till  the  time  of  liberation — till  the  year  of 
jubilee.  [Dillmann  rejects  this  solution  of  the  diSiculty,  as  irreconcilable  with 
Lev,  xxv.  40  f.  But  this  we  do  not  see.  What  other  words  could  the  law  have 
used  to  express  the  thought  which  he  rejects  ?] 

(1)  By  the  wife  who  does  not  become  free  is  meant,  of  course,  a  slave  who  is 
not  an  Israelite  (see  the  Mechilta  on  this  passage)  ;  if  she  was  a  Bebrewess,  she 
also  had,  according  to  Deut.  v.  12,  first  to  serve  out  her  six  years  ;  but  if  she  was 
not  a  Hebrewess,  she  had  no  claim  whatever  to  be  freed. 

(2)  [Ewald,  Antiquities  of  Israel,  p.  213,  and  Dillmann  in  his  Commentar,  refer 
the  expression  "go  D''rl7^-7X, "  to  the  supreme  judicial  court  in  the  sanc- 
tuary, and  make  it  relate  to  the  door-post  of  the  sanctuary.  The  latter  says  that 
the  passage  in  Deuteronomy  proves  nothing  against  this  explanation  of  the 
passage  in  Exodus,  because  in  Deuteronomy  nothing  is  said  of  appearing  before 
the  court.] 

(3)  [Dillmann,  in  accordance  with  his  explanation  of  the  door-post :  "The  sign 
signifies  that  the  ears,  i.e.,  the  obedience  of  this  man,  belong  to  another,  lie  is  his 
hearer." — The  boring  of  the  ears  was,  among  several  Oriental  nations,  a  sign  of 
slavery.] 

(4)  See  Hengstenberg,  Genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch,  ii.  p.  361  ;  Bertheau,  The 
Seven  Groups  ^  the  Mosaic  Laws,  p.  22  ff. 


244  THE  COVENANT  OP  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  111. 

§111. 

(b)   The  Position   of  Servants  not  Israelites. 

Slaves  in  the  strict  sense  were,  as  we  have  seen  from  the  above-mentioned  pas- 
sage, Lev.  XXV.  44^6  (§  109),  to  be  acquired  in  part  from  the  surrounding  nations, 
and  in  part  from  settlers  in  the  land.  The  term  "  nations  round  about"  excludes 
the  Canaanitish  tribes  who  dwelt  in  the  land  (see  Raschi  on  this  passage)  ;  for 
they  were  to  be  completely  exterminated  (Dent.  xx.  16-19).  Since,  however,  this 
was  not  executed,  but  rather  considerable  remnants  of  the  Canaanites  remained 
in  the  land,  these,  so  far  as  Israel  obtained  the  mastery  over  them,  were  (Judg.  i. 
28,  30)  subjected  to  compulsory  service  ;  just  as  at  a  previous  time  that  "  mob" 
(Luther's  translation)  which,  according  to  Ex.  xii.  38  (3"!.;?.,  a  mixed  multitude). 
Num.  xi.  4  (^?3l)N,  a  heterogeneous  crowd),  joined  themselves  to  the  Israelites 
when  they  were  marching  out  of  Egypt,  were  employed  in  the  meaner  offices  in 
the  camp  (Deut.  xxix.  11)  (1).— For  the  future,  also,  it  is  ordained  in  the  law  of 
war  (Deut.  xx.  11  fE.),  that  the  inhabitants  of  towns  not  belonging  to  the  Ca- 
naanites who  voluntarily  became  subject  to  Israel  should  fall  into  serfdom  ; 
while,  on  the  contrary,  in  towns  which  were  taken  by  force,  the  men  were  to  be 
killed,  and  only  women  and  children  to  be  reduced  to  slavery  (comp.  Num. 
xxxi.  16  f.,  26  f.).  Thus  was  formed  m  the  Hebrew  state  a  sort  of  Helot-class, 
mentioned  especially  under  David  (2  Cbron.  ii.  17,  comp.  with  2  Sam.  xx.  24) 
and  Solomon  (1  Kings  ix.  20  ;  2  Chron.  viii.  7).  This  class,  which  was  bound  to 
compulsory  labor  and  employed  on  the  public  works,  is  estimated  in  2  Chron.  ii. 
17  at  153,600  persons.  Private  slaves  may  have  also  in  part  been  taken  from  this 
class  of  men.  As  the  Old  Testament  never  mentions  the  importation  of  slaves  or 
slave-markets  in  the  land,  it  is  supposed  that  Israel,  even  in  the  times  when  it 
kept  up  a  lively  intercourse  with  other  nations,  drove  no  considerable  slave-trade, 
and  hence  acquired  comparatively  few  slaves  by  purchase  in  foreign  lands.  It 
hardly  appears  that  Israelites  came  in  contact  with  the  Phoenician  slave-trade 
otherwise  than  as  sufferers  (Joel  iii.  6,  Ob.  20).  How  little  the  law  favored  the 
multiplication  of  heathen  slaves  is  shown  by  the  remarkable  regulation  in  Deut. 
xxiii.  16  f.,  in  which  it  is  said  that  a  slave  who  has  run  away  from  his  heathen 
master  and  fled  into  the  land  of  Israel  must  not  be  delivered  up  nor  treated  with 
violence,  but  was  rather  to  receive  liberty  to  settle  down  where  he  pleased  in 
an  Israelitish  town. — After  what  has  been  said,  it  cannot  appear  remarkable  that 
the  number  of  slaves  in  Israel  was  comparatively  much  smaller  than  among  other 
civilized  nations  of  antiquity.     (See  Ezra  ii.  64  f.,  Neh.  vii.  66  f.,  and  §  189.) 

The  provisions  of  the  law  concerning  the  religious  and  legal  position,  of  slaves 
are  as  follows  : — AVith  regard  to  the  receiving  of  slaves  into  the  religious  com- 
munity of  the  covenant  people  by  circumcision,  the  law  of  patriarchal  times  re- 
mained in  force  ;  see  Ex.  xii.  44  (comp.  §  82,  3).  Rabbinic  tradition  says  that  it 
was  not  lawful  to  compel  a  heathen  slave  to  be  circumcised,  but  he  was  to  be  re- 
sold at  the  end  of  a  year  if  he  persevered  in  refusing  the  rite.  By  circumcision, 
slaves  obtained  a  right  (according  to  the  passage  cited)  to  partake  of  the  Passover  ; 
they  are  thus,  in  distinction  from  aliens  and  day-laborers  (ver.  45),  to  be  treated 


§   111.]  THE   POSITION   OF   SERVANTS   KOT  ISRAELITES.  245 

as  members  of  tlie  family  (2).  Tliat  the  slaves  took  part  in  the  sacrificial  feasts 
follows  from  this  as  a  matter  of  course  (Deut.  xii.  13,  18,  xvi.  11  14).  It  was 
not  lawful  (Deut.  v.  14)  to  interfere  with  the  Sabbath  rest  of  the  slaves  (3).— 
With  reference  to  the  treatment  of  female  slaves,  the  rule  laid  down  in  Deut.  xxi. 
10  ff.  concerning  women  taken  in  war  is  particularly  characteristic  of  the  hu- 
mane spirit  of  the  law. — The  master  has  no  right  over  the  life  of  the  slave. 
To  this  Ex.  xxi.  20  f.  refers  (4).  Here  it  is  commanded  that,  "  If  a  master  strike 
his  man-servant  or  his  maid-servant  with  a  staff,  so  that  he  or  she  die  under  his 
hand,  it  shall  be  avenged."  [We  are  not  with  the  Jewish  tradition  to  think  of 
the  punishment  of  death  (see  Ilottinger,  Juris  heir,  leges,  p.  60),  since  what  is 
spoken  of  is  not  intentional  killing,  but  the  abuse  of  the  right  of  chastisement.  The 
intentional  killing  even  of  one's  own  slave  fell  undoubtedly  under  the  law,  Ex.  xxi. 
12,  Lev.  xxiv.  17.  Observe  the  antithesis  in  vv.  18,  21].  If,  however,  the  slave 
outlived  the  punishment  one  or  two  days,  there  was  to  be  no  punishment,  accord- 
ing to  ver.  21  of  the  law,  for  "  it  is  his  money"  —that  is,  the  master  is  already  suffi- 
ciently punished  by  the  loss  occasioned  by  the  death  of  the  servant.  Besides,  an 
intention  to  kill  could  not  in  this  case  be  supposed.  Lastly,  ver.  26  f.  commands 
that  if  any  one  strikeout  the  eye  or  tooth  of  a  slave,  he  must  immediately  give 
him  his  freedom. 

The  humane  treatment  of  slaves  required  by  the  law  is  also  inculcated  else- 
where in  the  Old  Testament.  How  distinctly  it  enjoins  the  recognition  of  human 
dignity  in  a  slave  is  especially  shown  by  the  passage  Job  xxxi.  13-15  :  "If  I  did 
despise  the  cause  of  my  man-servant  or  of  my  maid-servant,  when  they  contended 
with  me  ;  what  then  shall  1  do  when  God  riseth  up  ?  and  when  He  visiteth,  what 
shall  I  answer  Him  ?  Did  not  He  that  made  me  in  the  womb  make  him  ?  and  did 
not  one  fashion  us  in  the  womb  ?"  (5). — The  admonitions  not  to  treat  a  slave  too 
delicately  (Prov.  xxix.  19,  21)  are  to  be  regarded  as  parallel  with  those  touching 
the  training  of  children  (6). 

(1)  On  the  class  of  slaves  for  the  sanctuary,  which  originated  in  a  similar  way, 
compare  §  166. 

(2)  As,  according  to  Lev.  xxii.  11,  the  slaves  of  a  priest,  like  his  family,  might 
partake  of  the  holy  food. 

(3)  That  a  master  who  had  no  male  issue  might  marry  a  slave  to  his  daughter, 
and  adopt  him  in  the  place  of  a  son,  is  shown  by  what  is  related  in  1  Chron.  ii. 
34  ff. 

(4)  Ex.  xxi.  20  f.  (see  Raschi  on  this  passage),  as  shown  by  the  conclusion, 
treats  of  slaves  who  were  not  Hebrews  ;  with  regard  to  Israelitish  slaves,  the  law 
of  blood-revenge  (Num.  xxxv.  16  ff.)  would  doubtless  have  been  observed. 
[Ibid.] 

(5)  Comp.  Aristotle,  Eth.  Nik.  viii.  13  (11)  :  ^iMa  ovk  Ian  irpbg  6ov7^ov  j?  dovloq — 
6  yap  Sovlog  e/iipvxov  opyavoV  to  6'  opyavov  afv^oc  SovTiog.  'H<  fiev  ovv  fiov'knq,  ovk  eari 
(pilia  7rpb(;  avrov,  y  iV  avOpunoc. — Seneca,  Epist.  v.  6  (ep.  47)  :  "  Ne  tamquam  hona- 
inibus  quidem,  sed  tamquam  jumentis  abutimur."— In  contrast  :  "  Vis  tu  cogi- 
tare  istum,  quern  servum  tuum  vocas,  ex  iisdem  seminibus  ortum,  eodem  frui 
coelo,  seque  spirare,  seque  vivere,  feque  mori  ?" 

(6)  Comp.,  too,  Sir.  xxx.  33  ff.  (xxxiii.  25  ff.).— Within  the  circle  of  Judaism, 
only  the  Essenes  and  Therapeutce,  went  so  far  as  wholly  to  abolish  slavery.  They 
repudiated  slavery  as  a  thing  unnatural,  because  inconsistent  with  the  common 
brotherhood  of  mankind  (see  Philo,  quod  omn.  prob.  Mang.  ii.  p.  475  ;  de  vit.  con- 
tempi,  ii.  p.  482). 


246  THE  cove:hant  of  god  with  Israel  and  the  theocracy.  [§  112. 

SECOND    DOCTRINE. 

THE  MOSAIC   PUBLIC   AYORSHIP. 

§112. 

General  Introductory  Remarks.     Essential  Character  of  this  Worship. 

Although,  in  virtue,  of  the  theocratic  ordinance,  all  human  relations  and  con- 
ditions have  a  religious  quality,  and  so  the  whole  life  of  the  Israelite  must  be 
shaped  as  a  service  paid  to  God,  yet  there  exists  a  special  series  of  institutions, 
forming  the  <^)p]  ^"V^il,  or  service  of  Jehovah  in  a  narrower  sense,  in  which  special 
exjjression  is  given  to  the  fundamental  idea  of  the  theocracy, — that  Israel  must  pre- 
sent itself  lefore  the  Ood  loho  has  chosen  the  people  and  h'ought  it  into  felloicship 
with  Himself  as  the  community  which  He  has  halloioed  (Ex.  xix.  4)  ;  that  Israel  must 
consecrate  to  God  itself  and  all  that  it  has.  The  grace  shown  and  blessings  given 
in  connection  with  the  acts  of  worship  (Lev.  ix.  22  ;  Num.  vi.  27)  correspond  on 
God's  side  to  this  devotion  of  the  people,  which  rests  on  the  divine  election  and 
institution  of  the  covenant,  and  is  completed  in  the  ordinances  defined  by  God, 
Note  how  these  three  elements — 1.  the  divine  election  and  institution  in  opposition 
to  human  id£?ioflp?i(jK£l.a  ;  2.  the  devotion  in  the  acts  of  worship  ;  3.  the  grace  con- 
nected therewith — are  united  in  the  words,  Ex.  xx.  24  :  "In  all  places  where  I 
cause  my  name  to  be  remembered"  (viz.  by  offerings,  as  is  seen  from  the  pre- 
ceding context),  "  I  will  come  unto  thee  and  bless  thee."  Thus  in  the  acts  of 
worship  a  continual  and  lively  intercourse  takes  place  between  the  congregation, 
drawing  near  to  God  with  prayer  and  sacrifice,  and  the  God  who  makes  His  pres- 
ence known  to  it  by  hearing  prayer  and  administering  the  good  things  of  His 
grace, — a  relation  of  mutual  communication  and  association  of  life,  which  is  des- 
ignated as  the  coming  together  of  God  and  the  people,  Ex.  xxix.  43  f.  ('f*");?'^) 

bx-jK^:  ':p'7  HD"^)  (1). 

Since  the  covenant  communion  subsisting  between  God  and  the  people  is 
expressed  in  the  ritual,  it  comes  under  the  notion  of  symbol ;  compare  how  ri'lX  is 
used  for  the  Sabbath,  Ex.  xxxi.  13,  17  (D3'r3^  'ra  XIH  niX).  The  institutions  of 
public  worship  must  not  be  looked  at  in  their  bare  outward  form,  but  must  be 
referred  to  the  idea  of  the  covenant,  and  interpreted  from  it.  Since  the  aim  of 
the  covenant  is  co.-'tained  in  the  words,  "I  am  holy,  and  ye  also  shall  be 
holy,"  that  which  is  the  task  of  the  whole  theocracy  holds  good  also  and  espe- 
cially for  the  ritual  worship,  viz.  that  it  is  to  be  "  the  representation  and  exer- 
cise of  the  process  of  sanctification"  (2). — True,  the  Mosaic  ritual  is  not  a 
system  of  conscious  symbol  in  the  sense  that  the  acts  of  worship  were  to  be 
OTe?'%  signs  of  internal  things,  which  would  thus  go  on  in  relative  independence 
of  the  acts  of  worship.  For  although  a  comprehension  of  the  symbols  of  the 
Mosaic  worship  could  not  be  absolutely  wanting  to  any  pious  Israelite  since 
from  the  knowledge  of  God  which  was  planted  in  Israel  by  revelation,  a  cer- 
tain  understanding   of    the   meaning   of   the   forms   must   necessarily  arise all 

the  more  so  because  the  ceremonial  law  itself  everywhere  shows  the  inner  side  of 


§    112.]         ESSENTIAL   CHARACTER   OF   THE    MOSAIC    WORSHIP.  247 

the  demands  of  the  law  shining  through  the  veil  of  outwiird  ordinances  ; — though 
this  was  so,  yet  the  outward  acts  of  worship,  as  such,  still  remain,  on  the  stand- 
point oflaw,the  necessary  vehicle  for  the  actual  realization  of  communion  between 
God  and  man.  For  example,  sacrifice  does  not  symbolize  a  devotion  to  God  tak- 
ing place  independently  of  the  act  of  sacrifice  ;  it  it  noimerely  a  symbol,  or,  as  has 
also  been  said,  a  supplement  to  prayer,  possessing  a  relative  necessity,  but  it  is 
just  the  demotion  of  oneself  to  God  which  is  carried  out  in  the  act  of  sacrifice. 
The  sacrifice  is  itself  an  embodied  prayer  ;  to  it  is  attached  the  attainment  of  divine 
pardon  and  divine  blessing  (of  this  there  can  be  no  doubt  when  the  passages  con- 
cerned are  looked  at  without  prejudice).  It  belongs  to  the  further  progress 
of  revelation  to  free  the  spiritual  contents  of  the  act  of  worship  from  its  husk 
(3).  For  the  stage  of  infancy,  the  ritual  ordinance  lias  the  educational  value  of  a 
process  M'orking  from  the  outside  to  the  inside,  and  so  awakening  a  God-fearing 
disposition,  a  consciousness  of  inward  communion  with  God  ;  comp.  e.g.  Deut. 
xiv.  22  f.  (4). 

(1)  The  view  which  sees  in  worship  only  an  activity  of  man  "  for  the  awakening 
and  enlivening  of  the  pious  consciousness"  is  precluded  from  reaching  a  full  un- 
derstanding of  worship  in  general,  and  in  particular  of  that  of  the  Old  Testament. 
See  against  this  the  remarks  of  Gaupp,  Pralt.  Theol.  i.  p.  83  ff.  The  point  in- 
volved in  worship  is  always  "to  find  a  medium  for  some  'personal  relation  and  com- 
munion with  God,"  not  by  any  means  simply  to  express  some  religious  state  in  an 
artificial  way  for  the  self-satisfaction  of  the  subject.  Prayer  requires  a  living, 
personal  God,  who  answers  prayer,  and  the  offering  of  sacrifice  demands  its  ac- 
ceptance by  God.  Where  man  does  not  know  that  he  has  to  deal  with  a  living, 
personal  God,  all  worship  ends,  or  becomes  a  dead,  deceptive  form. — That  the 
sacrificial  side  of  worship  is  predominant  in  the  Old  Covenant,  and  the  sacramental 
in  the  New,  is  due  to  the  relation  of  law  to  gospel  ;  in  the  latter,  what  God  does 
for  man  stands  first ;  in  the  former,  man's  acts.  See  Sartorius,  Ueber  den  alt-und 
neutest.  Kultus,  p.  40  f. 

(2)  Compare  Bahr's  SymloUh  des  mos.  Kultus,  i.  p.  27  ff.,  especially  33  f. — The 
Mosaic  worship  is  viewed  merely  from  the  outside  when,  as  has  not  seldom  hap- 
pened, the  idea  is  ascribed  to  it  that  God  is  really  to  he  fed  by  the  offering,  or 
when  such  profound  interpretations  are  given  as  that  of  Clericus,  that  the  incense 
at  the  sacrifice  was  designed  to  drive  away  impertinent  flies  from  the  flesh  of  the 
sacrifice,  etc. — The  worship  must  be  understood  from  the  idea  of  the  covenant. 
K.  J.  Nitzsch  has  expressed  himself  particularly  well  on  this  topic  in  his  acade- 
mic lectures,  On  Christian  Theology,  1858,  which  contain  a  series  of  excellent  re- 
marks on  the  Old  Testament  in  opposition  to  current  misunderstandings.  He 
rightly  says  :  "  The  whole  Old  Testament  ought  to  be  and  must  be  a  representa- 
tion and  exercise  of  the  process  of  sanctification. — The  whole  nature  of  the 
symbols  and  ceremonies  of  Moses  is  diffcreiit  from  those  of  the  heathen,  although 
much  in  the  outer  forms  in  heathenism  and  the  Old  Testament  seems  to  be  quite 
similar.  The  heathen  ceremonies  effect  material  union  with  the  Divinity  er  opere 
ojiernto,  and  so  work  magically.  There  is  not  a  single  usage  in  the  institutions 
of  Mos(-s  in  which  communion  with  God  is  effected  in  a  magical  way  through  the 
senses,  but  all  have  a  purely  symbolical  nature.  This  holds  good  of  purifications, 
of  offerings,  of  sacred  buildings  and  their  construction  ;  it  holds  good  of  every 
utensil  of  the  temple  and  every  action." 

(3)  In  the  Prophets  and  the  Psalms,  as  we  shall  see  afterward,  value  is  attached 
to  sacrifice  only  so  far  as  it  goes  along  with  inward  acts  of  pious  feeling,  and  thus 
it  appears  as  relatively  indifferent.  Mosaism  says  :  Piety  approves  itself  in  sacri- 
fice ;  prophecy  says  :  Sacrifice  is  approved  only  by  piety.  The  two  propositions 
are  mutually  dependent,  but  the  question   is.  Which  stands   foremost?      This 


248   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  TEtEOCRACY.    [§  113. 

agrees  with  the  gradual  progress  of  the  Old  Testament  revelation.  But  we  must 
not  think  that,  if  it  had  not  been  the  design  of  the  Mosaic  institutions  to  mirror 
the  inner  events  of  salvation,  prophecy  could  have  developed  this  thought  from 
them. 

(4)  Deut.  xiv.  23  f.  :  Bring  the  tithes,  "that  thou  mayest  learn  to  fear  Jeho- 
vah thy  God  at  all  times"  (comp.  §  84). 


§113. 

The  Place  of  the  Word  in  Public  Worship. 

Connected  with  the  matter  of  our  last  remarks  is  the  peculiarity  of  the  Mosaic 
worship,  that  in  it  the  word,  speech,  as  an  independent  fart  of  worship,  has  little 
prominence,  and  scarcely  appears  except  as  attached  to  some  action  and  supported 
thereby.  The  proclamation  of  the  divine  word  does  not  appear  as  an  essential 
part  of  the  Old  Testament  worship  ;  and  though  the  teaching  of  Jehovah's  law 
and  statutes,  Deut.  xxxiii.  10,  is  specified  among  the  priest's  duties  (comp. 
§  95),  the  reading  of  the  law  appears  in  connection  with  worship  only  in  the  regula- 
tion in  Deut.  xxxi.  11  (every  seventh  year,  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles).  But  to  the 
place  of  worship  was  attached,  without  express  teaching,  the  knowledge  of  the  God 
who  shows  Himself  there  as  a ^jjresewi  God,  Ex.  xxix.  43-46,  according  to  which,  pas- 
sages like  Ps.  xxvii.  4,  etc.  are  to  be  understood  ;  while  with  the  acts  of  worship 
was  connected  the  lively  transmission  of  the  Tcnowledge  of  the  great  deeds  on  which 
Israel  rested  its  faith  ;  see  passages  like  Ex.  xii.  26  f.,  xiii.  14,  etc.  (comp.  § 
105).  The  liturgical  use  of  the  Word  is  found,  moreover,  in  the  middle  books  of 
the  Pentateuch,  and  this  not  merely  (as  we  often  find  it  said)  in  the  high  priest's 
blessing,  Num.  vi.  24-26.  At  the  festival  of  the  day  of  atonement  a  liturgical 
formula  is  obviously  presupposed.  Lev.  xvi.  21  ;  and  it  is  especially  enjoined  that 
at  the  presentation  of  a  sin-oflfering  (Lev.  v.  5  ;  Num.  v.  7)  a  definite  confession 
of  his  sin  shall  be  made  by  the  offerer.  Vows  must,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
be  uttered.  Deuteronomy  prescribes  stated  prayers,  chap,  xxvi.,  only  on  present- 
ing the  first-fruits  and  the  tithes.  Nevertheless,  side  by  side  with  the  established 
forms  of  worshiji  there  prevailed  among  the  people  a  powerful  spirit  of  prayer  ; 
and  so  all  the  examples  set  forth  in  the  Pentateuch  are  also  represented  as  pray- 
ing men  of  strong  faith  (1).  From  this  spirit  of  prayer  arose  sacred  song,  which, 
in  connection  with  the  festival  dance,  was  introduced  into  the  service  of  worship 
as  early  as  Ex.  xv.  20.  f.,  comp.  with  Judg.  xxi.  21,  but  which  up  to  the  time  of 
David  appears  only  in  perfectly  free  and  unregulated  use  (2). 

Appendix :   The  Oath. 

The  oath  is  also  regarded  as  a  religious  act.  See,  as  the  main  passage,  Deut. 
vi.  13:  "Thou  shalt  fear  Jehovah  thy  God  ;  Him  shalt  thou  serve,  and  shalt 
swear  by  His  name  ;"  comp.  x.  20.  Swearing  is  accordingly  an  act  of  religious 
profession;  comp<  passages  like  Jer.  iv.  2,  Isa.  xlv.  16.— The  oath  appears  not 
merely  as  an  asseveration, — as  the  assertion  of  the  truth  before  the  presence  of 
God  as  the  Living  One  (in  the  formula  TWTV  "H,   "Jehovah  lives,"  see  §  42), 


§   113.]  THE    OATH.  249 

and  hence  as  the  omnipotent,  omniscient,  and  holy  avenger  of  untruth — so,  e.g., 
Judg.  xi.  IQ  ("May  Jehovah  be  judge  between  us")  ;  but  it  is  a  distinct  appeal 
to  His  ])enal  justice  against  him  who  knowingly  speaks  falsehood.  This  concep- 
tion of  the  oath  is  sufficiently  evident  even  from  the  common  form  of  swearinf 
with  DN  and  5<  /  DX  which,  fully  expressed,  demands  a  sentence  of  the  sort  which 
we  find  in  2  Sam.  iii.  35  :  'TP'  ^'^1  ^"&>^.  '^"HK/j;;.  nJD  (if  this  and  that  is  or  is 
not  so)  ;  comp.  1  Sam.  xiv.  24.  But  this  character  of  the  oath  is  particularly 
clear  in  the  main  passage  Josh.  xxii.  22  ;  "  mrf  D'tl'?*!  bx  mn'  D'TISk  bx  knows 
and  Israel  shall  know,  if  it  be  in  rebellion,  or  in  transgression  against  Jehovah, 
save  us  not  this  day;"  and  ver.  23:  "Let  Jehovah  Himself  require  it."  The 
oath,  viewed  as  such  an  appeal  to  God's  penal  justice,  bears  the  name  nSx,  or 
more  fully  n7K  r\J,!3K?,  Num.  v.  21,  with  which  passage  compare  also  Deut.  xxix. 
13,  18,  Prov.  xxix.  24,  etc.  Therefore  Solomon,  in  his  prayer  at  the  dedication  of 
the  temple,  1  Kings  viii.  31  f.,  prays  that  the  effect  of  an  n'?^  presented  at  the 
altar  may  be,  that  God  in  heaven  may  hear,  act,  and  judge,  to  condemn  the  god- 
less, to  bring  his  way  on  his  head,  and  to  justify  the  righteous,  and  give  him 
according  to  his  righteousness. — -The  oath  appears  in  private  life  from  the  most 
ancient  times  as  a  promissory  oath,  Gen.  xxiv.  2  f. ,  1.  5,  25  ;  in  particular,  as  an 
oath  of  covenant,  xxi.  23  ff.,  xxxi.  53  f.  The  law  speaks  of  promissory  oaths,  partic- 
ularly in  the  form  of  vows  (see  §  143  f.).  The  law  still  further  acknowledges 
the  asse7'tory  oath,  as  an  oath  of  purgation  hefore  the  court  of  justice,  Ex.  xxii.  11,  and 
as  an  adjuration  by  the  judge  to  those  who  were  present  and  in  a  position  to  bear 
witness,  Lev.  v.  1  (comp.  §  99).  To  this  head  belongs  also  the  adjuration  of  those 
accused  of  adultery.  Num.  v.  19  ff.  (comp.  §104,  1). — Hheform  in  which  an  oath  was 
taken  was  always  that  the  oath  was  sworn  by  Jehovah  (mri"'  'C).  Protestations 
by  the  soul  ('"|^3J  'n)  and  the  like  are  matters  of  private  caprice,  and  not  of  theo- 
cratic rules.  Custom  combined  various  signs  with  the  taking  of  an  oath  ;  thus, 
in  Gen.  xxi.  28  ff.,  seven  lambs  were  set  up  as  pledges  of  the  oath, — much  as,  ac- 
cording to  Herodotus,  iii.  8,  the  Arabians  closed  a  bargain  by  smearing  seven 
stones  with  the  blood  of  the  contracting  parties.  The  word  i-'S^J,  to  swear, 
properly  to  le-seven  one  another,  points  to  the  great  age  of  such  customs.  The 
variously  interpreted  patriarchal  ceremony  in  swearing,  viz.  laying  the  hand  under 
the  thigh  of  him  who  is  sworn  to.  Gen.  xxiv.  2,  xlvii.  29,  is  probably  to  be  ex- 
plained by  the  fact  that  the  thigh  was  regarded  as  the  source  of  physical  life. 
It  was  doubtless  still  more  common  to  raise  the  hand  in  invocation  toward  heaven 
Gen.  xiv,  22  f.,  comp.  with  Deut.  xxxii.  40,  Ex.  vi.  8.  The  official  and  j;/<Z/eiaZ 
form  of  oath  among  the  Hebrews  was,  that  he  who  administered  the  oath  conjured 
the  man  who  was  to  swear,  who  then  answered  the  adjuration  with  j?**  (comp. 
Num.  V.  22  ;  Deut.  xxvii.  16  ff.),  or,  "thou  sayest  it,"  Matt.  xxvi.  63  f.  (in  the 
mouth  of  Jesus). 

Perjury,  as  a  profanation  of  Jehovah's  name  (Lev.  xix.  12),  as  a  vain  use  of  it 
Ex.  XX.  7),  is  a  heavy  sin.  How  sacred,  sw^earing  was  counted  is  shown  by  Josh, 
ix.  19,  where  even  an  unlawful  obligation  contracted  by  oath  is  held  to,  in 
order  that  God's  wrath  (^VP.)  may  not  come  on  the  community.  Even  an  as- 
severation frivolously  spoken  was  to  be  atoned  for  by  a  sin-offering.  Lev.  v.  4  ff. 
When,  in  Lev.  v.  21  ff.  [E.  V.  vi.  2  ff.],  a  man  who  has  denied  upon  oath  the  pos- 


250   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  114. 

session  of  a  deposit,  or  otherwise  has  used  an  oath  to  conceal  a  breach  of  trust, 
is  sentenced  only  to  restore  the  amount  of  his  breach  of  trust,  with  the  addition 
of  one  fifth  more,  and  then  to  bring  a  trespass-offering,  the  apparent  lightness  of 
this  punishment  is  probably  to  be  explained  by  assuming  that  the  law  refers  only 
to  the  case  of  voluntary  confession  of  perjury.  — In  the  later  books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  compare,  with  reference  to  the  sacredness  of  the  oath,  Ps.  xv.  4  ; 
1  Kings  viii.  31  f .  ;  Ezeis.  xvii.  16  ff.  (with  reference  to  Zedekiah,  comp.  §  186)  (3). 

(1)  Formal  directions  for  prayer  are  altogether  omitted  in  the  Pentateuch  ; 
examples  of  prayer  are,  however,  given,  and  answers  to  prayer  are  recounted  : 
Jacob's  wrestling  ;  Moses'  uplifted  hands  at  the  battle  with  Amalek  ;  his  medi- 
atorial intercession  for  the  people  before  God — such  types  are  presented  from 
which  every  one  can  draw  the  knowledge  of  God's  will  :  "  Call  on  me  in  trouble," 
etc. 

(2)  According  to  Judg.  xxi.  31,  virgins  went  in  such  dances  to  the  yearly 
festival  in  Shiloh. 

(3)  Ps.  XV.  4,  "He  sweareth  to  his  hurt,  andchangeth  not,"  must  be  explained 
by  referring  the  passage  to  Lev.  v.  4. — It  is  noteworthy  how  the  Rabbins  combine 
strictness  and  laxity  in  the  doctrine  of  oaths.  Thus  Maimonides,  Hilchoth 
shebuoth  xi.  16,  ed.  Dithmar,  p.  204  (comp.  the  passage  from  the  Shulclian  aruch 
in  Bodenschatz,  Kirchl.  Verfassung  der  heutigen  Juden,  p.  364)  teaches,  on  tlie  one 
hand,  that  the  Jew  who  swears  ought  to  remember  that  the  whole  world  quaked 
in  the  hour  when  God  said  to  Moses,  "  Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  thy  God 
in  vain."  Perjury  does  not  concern  the  transgressor  alone,  but  his  whole  race — 
indeed  all  Israel,  etc.  But  what  wretched  casuistry  does  Maimonides  develop, 
on  the  other  hand,  in  the  same  book  !  what  lax  usage  do  the  provisions  of  the 
Rabbins  on  compulsory  oaths  permit  !  Comp.  my  article,  "  Kol  Nidre,"  in 
Herzog's  R.E.  viii.  p.  24  f. 


I.    THE   PLACE   OF    WOKSHIP   (1). 

§  114. 
The  Requisites  for  a  Place  of  Worship. 

The  simplest  place  of  worship  is  the  altar,  which  is  first  mentioned.  Gen.  viii. 
20  ;  a  height  rising  toward  heaven,  signifying  the  ascent  of  the  devotion  embodied 
in  sacrifice  (2).  The  common  name  for  the  altar,  n^JP,  designates  it  as  the  place 
of  sacrifice.  The  first  condition  for  a  place  of  worship  is,  that  it  has  heen  chosen 
and  sanctified  by  God,  and  has  actually  heen  witnessed  to  as  the  place  of  Ills  revela- 
tion. As  already  in  the  time  of  the  patriarchs  altars  were  set  up  chiefly  in  places 
consecrated  by  theophanies.  Gen.  xii.  7,  xxvi.  24  f.  (compared  with  xxviii.  18, 
xxxv.  1,  14),  so,  according  to  Mosaic  law,  only  that  place  is  permitted  to  be  a 
place  of  worship  where  God  has  established  the  memory  of  His  name,  Ex.  xx.  24; 
which  He  has  chosen  to  cause  His  name  to  dwell  there,  Deut.  xii.  5,  11  (xiv.  23) 
(comp.  §  56)  ;  which  He  fills  with  His  glory  (Ex.  xl.  34),  and  thereby  sanctifies 
(xxix.  43  f.) — as  it  is  afterward  said  of  the  temple  (1  Kings  ix.  3  ;  2  Chron.  vii.  16), 
that  His  eyes  and  His  heart  were  there. 

The  sanctuary  is  to  be  one  only,  that  the  people  may  be  kept  together  in  theo- 
cratic unity.  Later  experience  shows  how  a  multiplicity  of  places  for  the  ordi- 
nances pf  worship  aided  the  growth  of  idol-worship.     The  exclusive  unity  of  the 


§    114.]  THE    REQUISITES    FOH   A    P*LACE    OF    WOllSHIP.  251 

national  sanctuary  is  implied  (not  only  in  Deuteronomy,  but)  already  in  what  is 
eaid  in  the  book  of  Exodus  concerning  the  tabernacle  as  Jehovah's  dwelling-place. 
The  passage  Ex.  xx.  24  f.,  "  Inevery  flace  where  I  place  a  memorial  of  my  name," 
etc.,  is  not  contradictory,  for  this  passage  does  not  give  leave  to  worship  Jehovah 
at  the  same  time  in  many  places  ;  but  the  meaning  is,  that  an  altar  of  earth  is  to 
be  erected  to  God  always  in  that  place  in  which  God  has  placed  a  memorial  of 
His  name.  A  number  of  places  is  only  spoken  of  so  far  as  the  seat  of  worship 
necessarily  varied  with  the  people's  place  of  residence,  as  long  as  they  were  on 
their  wanderings  (3).  The  unity  of  the  sanctuary  is  further  presupposed  in  the 
prohibition,  given  for  the  wandering  in  the  wilderness  (Lev.  xvii.  1  flf.)  (4),  against 
killing  an  animal  belonging  to  the  class  of  sacrificial  animals  anywhere  except  at 
the  sanctuary.  The  command,  however,  is  most  distinctly  given  in  connection 
with  the  settlement  of  the  nation  in  the  Holy  Land,  in  Deut.  xii.  ;  permitting,  in- 
deed, the  killing  of  animals  for  food  in  every  place,  but  limiting  every  sacrifice  to 
that  place  which  Jehovah  shall  choose  for  the  habitation  of  His  name.  Neverthe- 
less, Deut.  xii.  8  indicates  that,  even  during  the  wandering  in  the  wilderness, 
the  prohibition  of  other  places  of  worship  was  not  fully  carried  into  effect  (5). 

(1)  Since  the  persons  charged  with  the  conduct  of  the  Mosaic  worship  have 
already  been  treated  of,  we  have  in  particular  only  to  treat  of  three  other  points  : — 
1.  Of  the  seat  of  worship  ;  3.  of  the  acts  of  worship  ;  and  3.  of  the  times  of 
worship. — Comp.  Bahr,  Symlolik  des  mos.  K-ultus. 

(3)  The  Greek  (iunog  also  primarily  signifies  a  height  =  ^*?3,  but  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment this  is  the  name  for  illegal  high  places  for  sacrifice.  [See  further  concern- 
ing the  ni03  in  Baudissin,  ii.  p.  255  ff.,  and  his  art.  "  Hohendieust"  in  Herzog, 
2d.  ed.] 

(8)  [So  also  Bredenkamp,  p.  130,  in  agreement  with  Delitzsch.  On  the  other 
hand,  Wellhausen,  i.  p.  30  :  "A  multiplicity  of  altars  is  recognized  (here)  not 
merely  as  admissible,  but  as  .a  matter  of  course  ;"  and  Dillmann,  Comm.  :  "  The 
author  allows  altars  to  Jehovah  to  be  erected  everywhere  in  the  land."  In  any 
case  the  passage  forbids  the  arbitrary  erection  of  altars;  for  the  words  "  in  all 
places  where  I  record  my  name"  are  not  invalidated  by  the  remark  of  Wellhausen, 
that  "  this  signifies  nothing  more  than  that  they  did  not  like  to  consider  that  the 
places  where  intercourse  between  heaven  and  earth  hud  occurred  were  arbitrarily 
chosen,  but  regarded  them  as  somehow  provided  by  the  Deity  Himself  for  their 
■worship"  (p.  31).] 

(4)  [Comp.  on  this  passage,  Bredenkamp,  p.  133  ff.  Dillmann  remarks:  "To 
predicate  a  post-Deuteronomic  or  still  farther,  a  post-exilic  origin  of  this  compo- 
sition is  downright  nonsense  ;  for  it  could  never  occur  to  the  f ramer  of  a  law,  who 
had  Deut.  xii.  15  ff.  and  xv.  33  f.  before  him  as  recognized  law,  to  enact  a  pro- 
vision like  that  in  Lev.  xvii.  3-7  with  the  addition  of  ver.  7  b."| 

(5)  [The  denial  of  the  historical  reality  of  the  tabernacle,  by  the  critics,  has 
been  already  referred  to  in  §  39,  note  1,  and  §  33,  note  3.  The  question  in  respect 
to  the  2)la,ce  of  worship  forms  one  of  the  principal  subjects  of  critical  discussion 
at  present.  That  in  the  account  of  the  tabernacle  in  Exodus  the  thought  of  the 
unity  of  worship  is  expressed,  and  that  it  is  conceived  of  as  the  only  legitimate 
place  of  worship,  is  acknowledged.  The  question  concerning  the  origin  of  the 
tabernacle  is  therefore  partly  coincident  with  the  question,  when  the  requirement 
of  unity  of  worship  was  made.  For  Wellhausen's  view  (i.  p.  17  ff.),  see  §  39,  note 
1.  With  him  as;rees  Reuss  (§  380)  :  "For  us  and  for  every  sober  thinker  the 
tabernacle  is  a  pure  fiction."  Similarly  H.  Schultz,  p.  375,  regards  the  taber- 
nacle in  Exodus  as  an  ideal  of  the  sanctuary,  made  after  the  pattern  of  Solomon's 
temple,  as  this  was  to  be  made  in  Israel  according  to  the  wish  of  the  creator  of 
this  ideal ;  yet  this  ideal  belonged  perhaps  to  the  age  of  Ezekiel,  and  did  not  orig- 


252   THE  COVEIfANT  OF  GOD  WITS'  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  115. 

inate  in  the  post-exilic  period.  Views  akin  to  this  are  adopted  by  Kittel,  Theol. 
Stud ien  cms  Wiirttemberg,  ii.  p.  33  ff.,  and  Baudissin,  art.  "  Hohendienst,"  p.  183 
if.  These  writers  appear  to  be  supported  by  Noldeke's  view,  Unters.  z.  Krit.  d. 
A.  r.,  p.  127,  that,  "  as  soon  as  Solomon's  temple  was  built,  a  strong  tendency 
toward  unity  of  worship  must  have  sprung  up."  Hence  they  are  inclined  to 
make  the  idea  of  the  tabernacle  in  Exodus  to  have  arisen  before  the  age  of  Deu- 
teronomy, which  is  brought  down  to  the  time  of  Josiah,  or  nearly  contempora- 
neously with  it.  On  the  other  hand,  the  real  existence  of  a  Mosaic  central 
sanctuary,  although  not  precisely  the  historical  truth  of  all  the  details  of  the 
account  in  Exodus,  is  defended  by  Dillmann,  Oomm.  z.  Exod.  p.  269  il.  ;  Delitzsch, 
m  Luthardt's  Zeitschrift,  1880,  and  Bredenkamp  (chap,  in.)  ;  comp.  also  the  re- 
marks of  F.  W.  8chultz  in  Zockler's  Hcmdbuch,  i.  p.  243  f. 

The  argument  that  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness  could  never  have  executed  a 
work  like  the  tabernacle  is  not  decisive.  For  who  to-day  is  able  to  determine 
what  the  Israelites  could  or  could  not  have  taken  with  them  from  Egypt,  or 
how  much  individual  Israelites  understood  of  the  mechanical  arts  ?  The  difficulty 
lies  in  the  fact  that,  not  only  from  the  time  of  the  Judges  onward  was  sacrifice 
offered  at  very  different  places,  but  that  the  multiplicity  of  places  does  not 
appear,  at  all  events,  as  illegal.  Samuel  offered  sacrifices  now  here  and  now 
there.  That  Saul  built  an  altar  to  the  Lord  is  not  mentioned  in  1  Sam.  xiv.  35  in 
the  way  of  censure.  David  received,  through  the  prophet  Gad,  the  command  to 
build  to  the  Lord  an  altar  on  the  threshing-floor  of  Araunah  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  18). 
That  the  worship  in  high  places  was  observed,  is  exj^ressly  stated  in  1  K.  iii.  2,  and 
is  there  excused,  "  because  there  was  no  house  built  unto  the  name  of  the  Lord." 

On  the  other  hand.  Josh.  xx.  shows  that  the  West-Jordan  tribes  resisted  an 
attempt  of  those  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan  to  establish  a  worship  of  their  own. 
Wellhausen,  indeed,  finds  also  in  this  narrative  the  aim  which  characterizes  the 
priests'  codex  (p.  39).  But  even  supposing  that  the  narrative  was  colored  by 
design,  would  there  not  lie  at  the  foundation  the  memory  of  a  conflict  occasioned 
by  the  schismatic  efforts  of  the  East-Jordan  tribes  ?  Moreover,  in  the  passage 
concerning  Eli,  1  Sam.  2,  28  ff.,  only  "  one  altar,  owe  place  of  worship,  and  o?ic  legit- 
imate priesthood,  are  spoken  of"  (Bredenkamp).  Wellhausen  is  able  to  get  rid 
of  this  passage  only  by  claiming  that  it  is  *'  Deuteronomy-wise  colored."  When 
Jeremiah  (vii.  12)  calls  Shiloh  "my  place  where  I  set  my  name  at  the  first,"  this 
appears  to  show  that  it  was  known  in  the  time  of  Jeremiah,  that  Shiloh  once  had 
a  similar  signification  for  Israel,  which  Jerusalem  with  the  temple  had  in  his  day. 
Comp.  the  whole  connection  of  the  passage,  particularly  v.  14.  It  is  especially 
worthy  of  notice,  that  the  old  book  of  the  covenant,  Ex.  23,  17,  requires  that  all 
the  men  should  each  year  assemble  before  Jehovah,  which  in  all  probability  points 
to  a  central  sanctuary.  For  the  solution  of  the  difficulty,  §§  158-160  will  be  found 
helpful.  Comp.  also  the  remarks  of  Delitzsch  in  his  art.  "  Opfer,"  in  Riehm, 
p.  115  f.] 

§  115. 

The  Arrangement  of  the  Mosaic  Sanctuary  (1). 

The  Mosaic  sanctuary  was  a  tent,  generally  called  *1^^?3  ^HX — that  is,  not,  as  many 
modern  critics  falsely  interpret  it,  tent  of  the  gathering  of  the  people,  but  tent  of 
the  meeting  of  Ood  with  the  people,  as  unequivocally  appears  from  the  definite  ex- 
planations, Ex.  xxix.  42  f.  (DK?  '1'Sk  -lanS  r\^]^  op'?  ni^x  -ik/k  .  .  .  n:;iD  Sn«, 
etc.)  Num.  xvii.  4,  comp.  with  Ex.  xxv.  22,  xxx.  6  (2).  The  other  name  for 
the  sanctuary,  rini>n  briN,  or  r>n>'n  |?"^P— that  is,  te7it  or  dwelling  of  the  testi- 
mony— denotes  the  sanctuary  as  the  place  of  revelation.  The  LXX  render  both 
expressions  by  cK-qvr)  tov  fiaprvpiov  or  T?/f  iiapTvplaq  :  the  Vulgate  generally  gives 
tabernacuUiih  fcederis,  and  from  the  latter  arises  Luther's  Stiftshiltte. 


§    115.]         THE    ARRANGEMENT    OF   THE    MOSAIC    SANCTUARY.  253 

The  frameirorTc  of  the  tent  formed  by  a  construction  of  gilded  boards  or 
(probably  more  correctly)  learns  (D'K'"ip).  The  wood  of  the  Arabic  acacia  (HtJiy, 
probably  different  from  ours)  was  selected  for  this  purpose,  as  well  as  for  the 
sacred  utensils,  doubtless,  because,  besides  being  very  light,  it  is  distinguished  by 
unusual  durability.  Over  the  wooden  frame  there  hung,  Ex.  xxvi.  1-14  a  four- 
fold covering  of  curtains,  the  first  of  which  was  made  of  byssus  (probably  fine 
linen),  embroidered  with  pictures  of  cherubs.  The  frame  with  this  first  cover- 
ing IS  called  |3"^p,  in  the  narrower  sense.  The  entrance  to  the  tent  was  turned 
toward  the  east,  and  hung  with  a  costly  covering  (^D?)  made  of  byssus.  The 
whole  tent — the  length  of  which  was  thirty  cubits,  and  its  breadth  ten — was  divid- 
ed into  two  rooms  :  in  front,  the  Hohj  Place,  5^"ipn,  twenty  cubits  long ;  and 
bcliind  this  the  Most  Holy  Place,  DT"7p,  t^^p,  in  length  ten  cubits,  and  separated 
from  the  former  by  a  curtain  woven  with  pictures  of  cherubim,  called  the  P^^'^B 
(separation).  The  tabernacle  was  surrounded  on  all  sides  by  a  court,  in  length  one 
hundred  cubits  and  in  breadth  fifty,  which  was  formed  by  pillars  and  curtains, 
and  had,  instead  of  a  door,  a  curtain  twenty  cubits  broad. — The  utensils  of  the 
sanctuary  were  as  follows  : — In  the  court,  in  the  open  air,  stood  the  altar  for  hurnt- 
offerings  (Ex.  xxvii.  1 II.),  n7;»n  nSTO,  which  is  always  meant  when  the  altar  is 
spoken  of  absolutely  :  it  was  a  frame  of  acacia  boards,  overlaid  with  copper.  As 
the  command  xx.  24  f.,  which  required  the  altar  to  be  made  out  of  earth  or  un- 
hewn stones,  was  not  abrogated  (comp.  Deut.  xxvii.  5  f.  ;  Josh.  viii.  31),  we  must 
doubtless  suppose  the  altar  to  have  been  a  mere  frame  without  a  top,  which  served 
simply  to  enclose  the  real  altar,  consisting  of  earth  or  unhewn  stones.  At  the 
four  corners  of  the  altar  were  heights,  called  horns,  on  which  a  part  of  the  blood 
was  smeared  at  the  sin-offerings,  and  which  were  laid  hold  of  by  those  who  sought 
a  refuge  at  the  altar  ;  comp.  e.g.  1  Kings  i.  50,  etc.  The  height  of  the  altar  was 
three  cubits  ;  it  was  surrounded  half-way  up  by  a  grating  (32"13),  in  order 
probably  to  let  the  priest  go  round  the  altar  on  it.  Between  the  altar  and  the 
sanctuary  was  a  copper  washing-basin,  "'I"'.?,  in  which  the  priests  washed  their  hands 
and  feet  before  going  to  the  duties  of  their  office,  Ex.  xxx.  17  ff.  In  the  sanctuary 
itself,  toward  the  north,  stood  the  table  with  the  twelve  loaves  of  shewhreacl,  007 
D'ja  (Ex.  XXV.  23-30),  which  were  prepared  from  fine  flour  without  leaven,  and 
put  there  new  every  Sabbath.  Opposite  the  table  stood  a  golden  candlesticTc  with 
seven  lamps,  with  bowls  in  the  form  of  almonds  and  knops  (D'lnSJ),  probably  in 
the  form  of  a  pomegranate,  vers.  31-40.  In  the  middle,  before  the  curtain  lead- 
ing to  the  most  holy  place,  was  the  altar  of  incense,  *l£?pP  ^"^V^,  overlaid  with  gold 
plate.  In  the  Most  Holy  Place  stood  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  ri'"!3n  |"nK,  also  called 
ark  of  the  testimony,  P^^"^]^.:}  pi^^,  also  simply  nn;?.,  the  most  sacred  vessel  of  the 
sanctuary, — a  chest  overlaid  within  and  without  with  fine  gold,  containing  the 
tables  of  the  law,  and  covered  with  a  golden  plate  called  ri'^33  (Jcapporeth),  the 
most  important  part  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  (see  in  particular.  Lev.  xvi.  13  ff.), 
from  which,  1  Chron.  xxviii.  11,  the  Holiest  of  all  bore  the  name  ri'^aSH  n'?.  The 
term  does  not,  as  many  modern  critics  understand,  signify  a  lid  in  general ;  but 
being  a  derivative  from  Piiil,  "^^S,  it  is  to  be  understood  to  mean  an  instrument  of 
atonement  [Eng.  version,  mercy  seat],  as  the  Septuagint  correctly  translates  it, 
iXaarypiov.     Above   the  kapporeth   stood  two  golden  cherubim,  with  outspread 


254   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  AVITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  IIG. 

wings  aad  faces  turned  toward  each  other  ;  between  them  the  shehhina  of  Jehovah 
was  supposed  to  be  (Ex.  xxv.  33;  Num.  vii.  89).  Hence  Jehovah  is  called 
□'3^2n  2'iy'  (1  Sam.  iv.  4  ;  3  Sam.  vi.  3  ;  Ps.  xcix.  1).  The  poles  for  bearing  the 
ark  (D"n3)  were  always  to  remain  in  the  rings  which  were  on  its  sides,  because  it 
was  not  to  be  touched  by  the  hand  of  man  ;  neither  was  it  to  be  seen,  and  there- 
fore before  it  was  carried  farther  it  had  to  be  covered  with  the  curtain  and  rolled 
up.  Num.  iv.  5  f.  Besides  this,  a  vessel  with  manna  (Ex.  xvi.  33),  Aaron's  rod 
that  budded  (Num.  xvii.  25),  and  lastly,  by  the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant, 
the  book  of  the  law  (Deut.  xxxi.  26),  were  kept  in  the  most  holy  place. 

(1)  Old  Testament  Theology  may  here  limit  itself  to  what  relates  to  the  symbolic 
signification  of  the  sanctuary,  and  leave  other  investigation  to  archaeology. — Comp. 
Bahr,  I.e.;  Kurtz,  "  Beitrage  zur  Symbolik  des  alttest.  Kultus,  erster  Beitrag  : 
zur  Symbolik  der  Kultuss'tatte"  [Zeitschr.  fur  luth.  Theol.  1851,  p.  1  ff.).  The 
best  essay  on  this  point  is  that  of  Riggenbach,  Die  mosaische  Stiftshiitte,  1863  (ed. 
3,  1867).  [Comp.  also  Kohler,  i.  364  ff.,  where  the  literature  of  the  subject  is  still 
further  given  ;  also  E.  E.  Atwater,  The  Sacred  Tabernacle  of  the  Hebrews.,  N.  Y., 
1875.— D.] 

(3)  The  essential  character  of  the  Old  Testament  worship  is  expressed  in  this 
designation  (comp.  §  113). 

§116. 

Meaning  of  the  Sanctuary.     Its  Three  Rooms. 

The  symbolic  interpretation  of  the  sanctuary  cannot,  as  has  frequently  been  done, 
proceed  from  a  comparison  with  a  common  nomadic  tent ;  because,  of  the  three 
rooms  of  the  latter,  the  central  is  the  chief,  while,  on  the  contrary,  in  the  three 
divisions  of  the  tabernacle,  we  easily  observe,  along  with  a  graduated  relation  of  size, 
a  graduated  relation  also  in  respect  to  their  importance.  Into  the  first  division, 
the  court,  only  the  covenant  people  can  go  ;  into  the  second,  only  the  priesthood  •, 
into  the  third,  the  high  priest  alone,  and  that  only  once  a  year.  The  first  division 
is  under  the  open  sky  ;  the  second  is  veiled,  but  still  lighted  ;  the  third  is  quite 
veiled  and  dark. — The  notion  that  the  sanctuary  is  an  image  of  the  universe  is  old, 
occurring  even  in  Josephus  {Ant.  iii.  6.  4)  and  Philo.  The  same  view  has  been 
again  brought  forward  by  Bahr  {Symbolik  des  mosaischen  Kultus,  i.)  in  a  peculiar 
form  and  an  ingenious  way  :  the  most  holy  place  and  the  holy  place  form  a  rep- 
resentation of  heaven  ;  the  court,  a  rej^resentation  of  earth  (1).  But  this  con- 
ception is  inconsistent  with  the  fact  that  everything  that  is  said  about  the  sanc- 
tuary makes  it  to  refer  simply  to  the  theocratic  relation  of  Jeliovah  to  His  elect 
people,  while  the  cosmical  meaning  is  nowhere  intimated  ;  for  such  a  conception 
certainly  does  not  necessarily  lie  in  the  square  form  of  the  building.  In  what 
sense  a  relation  between  the  sanctuary  and  heaven  is  to  be  admitted  will  appear 
below.  The  sanctuary  is,  as  it  is  called,  the  tent  of  the  meeting  of  God  and  the 
people  ;  but  this  in  the  sense  that  hero  the  people  come  to  Jehovah  in  His  dwell- 
ing-place, which  He  has  established  in  the  midst  of  His  people.  Accordingly,  in 
the  sanctuary  is  embodied  the  idea  of  Qod''s  dwelling  among  the  people  of  Israel.  It 
is  a  tent ;  because  Jehovah,  who  accompanies  His  people  in  their  wanderings 
[comp.  3  Sam.  vii.  6  f.],  aims,  in  respect  to  His  dwelling-place,  to  place  Himself 


§    117.]        SACRED   VESSELS    IN   THE    COURT    AND    SANCTUARY.  255 

in  similar  circumstances  with  them.  But  at  the  same  time,  the  people  are  to  be 
made  conscious,  that  although  the  Holy  God  condescends  to  dwell  among  His 
people,  yet,  on  account  of  the  people's  sinfulness,  this  communion  cannot  be 
accomplished  directly,  but  only  through  the  mediation  of  the  people's  interces- 
sor, who  holds  the  ofHce  of  reconciliation.  The  people  are  therefore  limited  to 
the  coiirt  surrounding  the  sanctuary,  and  the  sanctuary  itself  is  only  allowed  to  be 
entered  by  the  priests.  But  even  these  priests  are  not  in  a  position  to  establish  a 
full  communion  with  God  (comp.  Heb.  ix.  8j.  For  this  reason  Jehovah's  dwell- 
ing-place is  divided  into  two  apartments  :  the  veiled,  holiest  of  all,  in  which 
Jehovah,  the  revealed,  and  yet  hidden,  and  in  a  manner  unapproachable  God 
(comp.  1  Kings  viii.  12),  is  enthroned  in  the  darkness  ;  and  the  holy  place, — the 
place  of  the  priests  and  their  service,  which  on  this  account  is  the  symbol  of  the 
mediation  of  the  covenant.  There  is  a  relation  between  the  sanctuary  and  heaven 
so  far  as  this,  that  the  shekhina  in  the  latter  corresponds  to  the  shekhina  in  the 
former  (see  §  62)  ;  indeed,  it  is  not  impossible  that  the  distinction  between  the 
heaven  (0'!'?!^')  and  the  heaven  of  heavens  (D'p^H  'OE?),  which  occurs  several  times 
in  the  Old  Testament,  corresponds  to  the  difference  between  the  holy  place  (12'lp) 
and  the  most  holy  place  (D'^/lp^  ^Ip)-  Ex.  xxv.  9,  40,  has  also  been  appealed  to 
in  support  of  this,  comp.  Heb.  viii.  5  ;  still  the  statement,  that  the  model  of  the 
tabernacle  and  its  vessels  was  shown  to  Moses  on  the  mount,  does  not  in  itself 
imply  that  the  sanctuary  was  to  be  a  copy  of  a  celestial  original,  but  only  that  it 
served  to  give  expression  to  the  ideas  of  revelation.  There  is,  moreover,  a  contrast 
between  the  two  divine  dwelling-places  ;  for  in  heaven  God  dwells  in  His  majesty 
as  Ruler  of  the  world, — in  the  earthly  tabernacle  He  dwells  in  His  condescending 
grace. 

(1)  Bahr  subsequently  modified  this  view  in  his  work  on  Solomon's  temple, 
1848  [and  in  the  second  edition  of  his  Symbolih  presented  a  view  nearly  like  that 
here  given.  He  regards  the  tabernacle  as  God's  dwelling  among  His  people,  and 
consequently  as  a  sign  and  pledge  of  His  kingly  authority  and  of  His  communication 
by  revelation  with  His  people,  but  also  at  the  same  time  as  a  figurative  represen- 
tation of  the  literal  dwelling  of  God,  viz.  heaven,  but  not  the  vault  of  heaven]. 


§117. 

Continuation:  Sacred  Vessels  in  the   Court  and  in  the  Sanctuary. 

The  meaning  of  the  various  sacred  vessels  corresponds  to  the  meaning  of  the  three  divi- 
sions of  the  sanctuary.  The  only  piece  of  sacred  furniture  with  reference  to  which 
an  immediate  activity  of  the  people  takes  place,  viz.  the  altar  of  Imrnt  offering, 
stands  in  the  court.  The  fact  that  nothing  but  earth  or  unJiewn  stone  was  to  be 
used  to  fill  up  the  frame  is  not  (as  Bahr  says)  meant  to  remind  us  that  man  is  a 
creature  of  the  earth,  and  a  sinner  subject  to  death, — for  how  could  the  unhewn 
stones  signify  this  ?— but  the  material  is  to  be  one  which  is  as  yet  not  desecrated 
ly  the  hand  of  man.— "The  horns  on  the  four  corners  of  the  altar  are  very  variously 
interpreted.  On  one  view  (held,  among  others,  by  Riggenbach,  and  Keil,  Archa- 
ologie,  i.  pp.  104,  229),  they  were  symbols  of  the  divine  power  of  salvation  and 
help,  because,  as  is  well  known,  the  horns  of  a  bull  are  the  symbol  of  strength. 


256    THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCKACY.    [§  117. 

and  with  this  view  it  well  agrees  that  to  them  especially  the  idea  of  asylum  was 
attached.  According  to  another  view,  which  agrees  better  with  the  use  of  the 
horns  in  the  sacrincial  service,  the  general  meaning  of  the  altar  (that  worship  ats- 
cends  to  God)  culminates  in  the  horns,  so  that  thus  the  blood  of  atonement 
sprinkled  on  them  is,  as  it  were,  brought  a  step  nearer  God  (1).  On  account  of  the 
importance  of  the  horns,  the  altar  is  destroyed  by  knocking  them  ofi,  Amos  iii. 
14. — The  wasMng-'basin^  '^''''3,  marks  the  passing  from  the  general  offering  of 
sacrifice  to  the  specific  priestly  service.  "When  the  priests,  Ex.  xxx.  21,  are  com- 
manded to  purify  hands  and  feet,  with  the  warning  that  else  they  must  die,  this 
is  meant  to  signify  that  he  who  has  to  carry  on  the  service  of  reconciliation  for  the 
congregation  must  sanctify  his  own  walk  and  acts. 

In  the  Jioly  place  stands  the  altar  of  incense,  in  front  of  the  inner  curtain,  and  so 
opposite  the  arh  of  the  covenant,  the  place  of  the  shekhina  of  God  veiled  by  the 
curtain.  The  incense-offering,  presented  here  every  morning  and  evening  by  the 
hand  of  the  i^riest,  was  (see  Ps.  cxli.  3  ;  Rev,  v.  8,  viii.  3  f.)  a  symhol  of  the 
prayers  of  the  people,  because  of  which  in  the  temple  at  a  later  time  (comp.  Luke 
i.  10)  during  the  time  of  the  priestly  offering  of  incense,  a  praying  congregation 
was  gathered  in  the  court.  In  Num.  xvii.  11  (xvi.  40),  the  burning  of  incense  is 
an  emblem  of  the  intercession  of  the  high  priest. — It  is  more  difficult  to  see  the 
meaning  of  the  toible  with  the  shewbread.  The  D'J3  Orj'!?  is  so  called,  Ex.  xxv.  30, 
evidently  because  it  was  laid  continually  before  Jehovah  ;  and  hence  the  table, 
Num.  iv.  7,  bore  the  name  D'Jpn  |n7K?.  [Bahr,  who  in  the  1st  ed.  of  his  Synibolik, 
i.  p.  425  ff.,  explains  "bread  of  the  countenance"  as  meaning  bread  by  the  use 
of  which  man  obtains  the  sight  of  God,  interprets  it  in  the  2d  ed.  as  a  sign  and 
pledge  that  all  that  pertains  to  the  life  of  Israel  (daily  bread  in  the  sense  of  the 
petition  in  the  Lord's  prayer),  comes  from  the  presence  of  Jehovah,  and  hence 
that  Jehovah  has  turned  his  face  to  Israel.] 

But  in  Lev.  xxiv.  8,  the  shewbread  is  designated  as  something  given  on  the  part 
of  (HKO)  the  children  of  Israel  as  an  "eternal  covenanV — that  is,  a  jiledge  of  the 
eternal  covenant  to  be  given  by  Israel  (2).  In  the  same  way,  this  whole  oblation 
comes  within  the  class  oi  food-offerings,  in  virtue  of  the  incense  which  was  sprinkled 
on  the  bread  as  n"^|i.IX  (ver.  7).  That  the  shewbread  is  akin  to  the  food-offering 
becomes  still  more  clear,  because,  according  to  Ex.  xxv.  29  f..  Num.  iv.  7,  to  the 
utensils  of  the  shewbread  belonged  also  those  vessels  which  were  used  for  drink- 
offerings.  The  meaning  of  the  shewbread  rather  is,  that  the  people  in  its  twelve 
tribes  testifies  by  the  continual  presentation  of  nourishing  bread  in  the  sanctuary 
that  it  owes  to  the  blessing  of  its  God  the  maintenance  of  life  ;  thereby  Israel 
dedicates  to  God  the  exercise  of  the  calling  by  which  it  wins  its  daily  bread  in 
the  use  of  God's  gifts  (3). — Since  Philo's  time,  the  candlestich  icith  the  seven  lamps 
has  often  been  referred  to  the  seven  2)la7iets  of  the  ancients.  But  though  the 
sanctity  of  the  number  seven  may  have  had  this  reference  in  some  other  nations, 
there  is  no  trace  of  this  in  the  Mosaic  worship.  The  number  seven  is  here  always 
the  sign  of  perfection  and  completion  in  all  relations  which  are  rooted  in  the  divine 
economy  of  salvation.  But  while,  in  general,  all  holy  things  symbolize  the  com- 
munion between  Jehovah  and  the  people,  the  candlestick  with  its  sevenfold  light 
points  to  tlic  perfect  Light  which  shines  in  this  covenant  community  ;  and  in  par- 
ticular, the  light  does  not  refer  merely  to  the  communication  of  higher  knowledge, 


§   118.]  THE   ARK   OF  THE   COVENAKT,  ETC.  ^57 

but,  as  in  the  high  priest's  blessing,  Num.  vi.  25  ("  Jehovah  make  His  face  shine 
upon  thee"),  to  saving  divine  grace  in  general.  This  meaning  of  the  symbol  is 
specially  confirmed  by  the  visions  Zech.  iv.  and  Rev.  i.  ff.  There  the  candlestick 
is  the  symbol  of  a  congregation  enlightened  by  God  ;  and  when,  in  the  vision  of 
Zechariah,  the  candlestick  is  filled  with  oil  without  the  act  of  man,  the  idea  ex- 
pressed is,  as  is  said  in  ver.  6,  that  all  the  success  and  all  the  splendor  of  the  con- 
gregation is  not  effected  by  might  or  by  power,  but  by  the  Spirit  of  God. — Almond 
Mossoms  and  jwmegranates,  the  ornaments  of  the  candlestick,  are,  in  the  heathen- 
ism of  Western  Asia,  symbols  of  natural  life  (4.)  If,  now,  in  Num.  xvii.  16-24, 
the  blossoming  almond-rod  is  the  symbol  of  the  inexhaustible  power  of  divine 
life  in  the  priesthood  of  Aaron  (comp.  §  95),  those  ornamentations  on  the  golden 
candlestick  are  also  to  be  regarded  as  the  symbol  of  the  divine  fulness  of  life 
which  the  congregation  shares  in  communion  with  God.  Light  and  life  are,  to 
speak  generally,  essentially  connected  ideas  in  Holy  Writ ;  comp.  in  particular 
Ps.  xxxvi.  9:  "With  Thee  is  the  fountain  of  life;  and  in  Thy  light  we  shall 
see  light."  In  the  symbols  of  the  holy  2^lace  the  truth  is  expressed,  that  the 
people  presents  itself  before  its  God  in  the  light  and  life  which  it  receives  in  vir- 
tue of  covenant  communion  with  God. 

(1)  Thus  Hofmann,  who  regards  the  horns  as  "the  peaks  of  the  sacred  height" 
(Schriftieweis,  ii.  p.  257),  etc.  I  hold  the  latter  explanation  to  be  the  more  prob- 
able.    Gen.   xvii.  11,  13. 

(2)  Comp.  how  the  same  term  is  used  of  circumcision,  §  87. 

(3)  This  interpretation  is  carried  further  by  Hengstenberg  and  others,  who  make 
the  shewbread  a  symbol  of  spiritual  nourishment,  which  the  people  has  produced 
and  now  presents  to  its  God  as  a  service  in  accordance  with  the  covenant — in 
other  words,  a  symbol  of  good  works  ;  an  interpretation  which  is  reached  by 
bringing  in  .John  vi.  27  ("  labor  not  for  the  meat  which  perisheth,"  etc.),  comp. 
with  iv.  32  ff.,  but  has  no  support  in  the  Old  Testament. 

(4)  Especially  the  almond  blossom,  because  it  wakes  into  bloom  while  all 
nature  is  still  asleep. 

§118. 

Continuation :   The  Arh  of  the  Covenant,  xoith  the  Kapporeth  and  the  TaUes  of 

the  Law. 

In  the  most  holy  place,  the  ark  of  the  covenant  is  the  symbol  and  vehicle  of 
the  presence  of  the  revelation  of  Jehovah  among  his  people.  Hence  it  is  called  the 
throne  of  God,  Jer.  iii.  16  f.  ;  God's  footstool,  1  Chron.  xxviii.  2,  Ps.  xcix.  5, 
cxxxii.  7.  But  its  meaning  is  more  nearly  defined  by  the  three  parts — the  Tcap- 
p>oreth  {mercxj  seat^  on  the  arh,  the  taUes  of  the  late  in  it,  and  the  cheruUm  over  it. 

1.  The  kapporeth  is  the  most  important  part  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant.  To  it 
specially  is  attached  the  manifestation  of  the  divine  presence  ;  "  there,"  it  is  said 
in  Ex.  XXV.  22,  "will  I  meet  with  thee,  and  will  commune  with  thee  from  above 
the  mercy-seat,"  etc.  In  the  circumstance  that  it  is  the  instrument  of  atonement 
(comp.  §  115),  and  that  it  is  at  the  kapporeth  that  the  highest  act  of  atonement 
is  executed,  it  is  expressed  that  the  God  who  dwells  in  the  midst  of  His  people 
can  only  commune  with  them  in  virtue  of  an  atonement  offered  to  Him,  but  that 
He  is  aiso  a  God  who  can  be  reconciled.  This  throne  of  God  is  veiled  in  deep 
darkness,  1  Kings  viii.  12  ("  Jehovah  hath  said  that  he  will  dwell  in  darkness")  ; 


2o8    THE  COVENAXt  OF  GO  I)  WITH  ISRAEL  AN^D  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  119. 

the  manifestation  of  God  over  tlie  kapporeth  takes  place  in  a  cloud,  which  veils  His 
glory,  Lev.  xvi.  2, — in  the  same  cloud  which  guided  Israel's  march  through  the 
wilderness,  Ex.  xiii.  21,  and  which,  Ex.  xl.  34-38,  lowered  itself  on  the  taber- 
nacle when  it  was  set  up.  Notwithstanding  this,  on  the  day  of  atonement,  the 
priest  who  approaches  with  the  blood  of  atonement  must  envelope  himself  in  a 
cloud  of  incense  (Lev.  xvi.  13)  when  he  raises  the  curtain  (1).  This  expresses 
the  fact  that  full  communion  between  God  and  man  is  not  to  be  realized,  even 
through  the  medium  of  the  atonement  to  be  attained  by  the  Old  Testament  sacri- 
ficial institutions— that,  as  is  said  in  Heb.  ix.  8,  as  yet  the  way  to  the  (heavenly) 
sanctuary  was  not  made  manifest  (jitjttu  neipavepuaOat.  t?/v  tuv  ayiuv  666v). 

2.  The  kapporeth  rests  on  the  ark,  in  which  are  the  tables  of  the  law,  the  tes- 
timony, rin;».  Tliis  means  that  God  sits  enthroned  in  Israel  on  the  ground  of 
the  covenant  of  law  which  He  has  made  with  Israel.  The  testimony  is  preserved 
in  the  ark  as  a  treasure,  a  jewel  (2).  But  with  this  goes  a  second  consideration 
(3)  ;  while  the  law  is  certainly,  in  the  first  place,  a  testimony  to  the  will  of  God 
toward  the  people,  it  is  also  (comp.  what  is  said  in  Deut.  xxxi.  26  f.  of  the  roll  of 
the  law  deposited  beside  the  ark  of  the  covenant)  a  testimony  against  the  sinful 
people, — a  continual  record  of  accusation,  so  to  speak,  against  their  sins  in  the 
sight  of  the  holy  God.  And  now,  when  the  kapporeth  is  over  the  tables,  it  is  de- 
clared that  God's  grace,  which  provides  an  atonement  or  covering  for  the  iniquity 
of  the  people,  stands  above  His  penal  justice. 

(1)  The  passage  Lev,  xvi.  2,  so  variously  interpreted,  runs  thus:  "And  the 
Lord  said  unto  Moses,  Speak  unto  Aaron  thy  brother,  that  he  come  not  at  all 
times  into  the  holy  place  within  the  veil  before  the  mercy-seat,  which  is  upon  the 
ark;  that  he  die  not:  for  I  appear  in  the  cloud"  (and  so  veiled)  "upon  the 
mercy-seat."  For  a  long  time  it  was  the  current  exegesis  (Vitringa,  Oiserv.  sacr.  1. 
p.  168  flf.,  Bahr,  Ewald)  to  identify  the  J J;'5  in  ver.  2  with  the  cloud  of  incense  in 
ver.  13  (comp.  §  140),  so  that  ver.  25  should  be  explained  :  "  that  he  may  not  die  ; 
for  only  in  the  cloud" — produced  by  the  incense — "  do  I  appear  over  the  kap- 
poreth." The  unnaturalness  of  this  paraphrase  is  manifest.  I  hold  that  view  to 
be  the  right  one  which  regards  the  two  clouds  (p^' )  as  different.  But  this  leaves 
it  a  disputed  point  what  the  first  ]}).l  is  to  be  supposed  to  be.  The  Rabbins  say, 
a  cloud  which  continually  hung  over  the  cherubim  ;  Luther,  on  the  contrary,  on 
Ps.  xviii.  (xvii.)  11,  observes  :  "  Super  propitiatorium  et  cherubim  nihil  erat  pos- 
itum,  quod  videretur,  sed  sola  fide  credebatur  illic  sedere  Deus"  {Exeget.  opera 
lat.  xvi.  p.  73).  Hofmann's  explanation  is  the  most  probable  {Scliriftleweis,  ii.  p. 
507  f.),  who  identifies  the  cloud  (correctly  pointed  with  the  article)  with  that 
mentioned  in  Ex.  xl.  It  was  to  appear  over  the  kapporeth  whenever  the  high 
priest  came  before  it. 

(2)  This  is  the  primary  meaning,  as  to  which  I  hold  that  Bahr  and  Kurtz  are 
right. 

(3)  Hengstenberg  has  wrongly  represented  this  as  the  only  meaning  of  the 
symbol. 

§119. 
Continuation:   Tlie  Cheruhini  (1) . 

3.  The  cherubim  are  one  of  the  most  important  symbols  of  the  Mosaic  worship. 
Figures  of  them  appear  also  on  the  tapestry  of  the  tabernacle,  and,  at  a  later  time, 
on  the  walls  of  Solomon's  temple,  and  in  the  vision  of  the  new  temple,  Ezek.  xli. 


§    119.]  THE    CHERUBIM.  250 

They  are  mentioned  first  in  Gen.  iii.  21, — a  fact  which,  as  Hengstenberg  and 
others  have  rightly  remarked,  indicates  that  they  belonged  to  a  symbolism  earlier 
than  that  of  Mosaism  (2).  In  Ps.  xviii.  11  they  appear  as  bearers  of  the  cloudy 
chariot  on  which  Jehovah  rides  ;  they  are,  besides,  mentioned  in  the  vision  of 
Ezekiel,  x.  1  ff.  comp.  with  i.  4  ff.,  in  which  latter  passage  they  are  called  rirn, 
i.e.  living  creatures,  as  in  Rev.  iv.  6  fE.  the  t^ua  (3).  They  nowhere  appear  devel- 
oped into  independent  personality,  like  the  D'liKin  [angels]  ;  they  are  not  sent 
out  like  these,  but  are  constantly  confined  to  the  seat  of  the  divine  habitation 
and  the  manifestation  of  the  Divine  Being  ;  this  also  holds  good  of  Gen.  iii. 
(comp.  §  62).  In  Ezekiel,  where  their  form  is  the  most  complicated  (comp.  Rev. 
iv.),  they  appear  with  a  fourfold  face, — that  of  a  man^  a  lioii,  a  hull,  and  an  eagle, 
—with  four  wings,  two  of  which  are  used  in  flying  while  the  other  two  cover  the 
body,  and  with  arms  and  feet ;  their  whole  body  is  covered  with  eyes.  This 
description  of  EzehieVs  is  not  to  ie  transferred  to  the  cherubim  of  the  sanctuary ;  in 
fact,  there  would  not  (as  Riehm  riglitly  remarks)  have  been  room  on  the  ark  of 
the  covenant  for  a  form  so  complicated.  Neither  can  the  cherubim  of  the  temple 
have  been  so  complicated.  For  since,  according  to  1  Kings  vii.  29,  36,  there 
were  figures  of  lions  and  bulls  beside  the  cherubim  on  the  brazen  bases  in  the 
temple  of  Solomon,  these  cannot  have  been  contained  in  the  figures  of  the  cher- 
ubim ;  nevertheless,  the  addition  of  the  former  shows  that  they  stand  in  some 
relation  to  the  clierubim.  But  we  must  further  note  (as  Hengstenberg  has  rightly 
indicated),  that  in  1  Kings  vi.  29  palms  and  open  flowers,  and  palms  again  in 
Ezek.  xli.  18  flf.,  appear  in  connection  with  the  cherubim.  But  if,  even  in  Ezek. 
i.  5,  the  human  form  is  to  be  regarded  as  predominant,  this  is  still  more  the  case 
with  the  cherubim  in  the  Pentateuch,  to  whom  hands  (Gen.  iii.  24)  and  faces 
(Ex.  XXV.  20)  are  ascribed.  The  cited  Pentateuchal  jjassages  lead,  indeed  (as 
Riehm  and  Keil  rightly  assert),  to  nothing  further  than  to  winged  human  forms 
(4).  But  it  is  not  at  all  probable  that  Ezekiel  was  the  first  to  add  all  the  other 
features  ;  some  form  or  other  akin  to  the  later  comiiosition.  although  simpler,  is 
l^robably  to  be  assumed  for  the  ancient  symbols  (o).  According  to  Hengstenberg 
(The  loolcs  of  Moses  and  Egypt)  and  others,  the  cherubim  of  the  Pentateuch  are  to 
be  regarded  as  imitations  of  the  Egyptian  sphinxes,  which  are  composed  of  the 
form  of  a  human  being  (not  merely  a  virgin,  but  oftener  still  a  man)  combined 
with  that  of  a  lion,  to  wliich  Ezekiel,  in  whose  portraiture  a  relation  to  the  As- 
syrian composite  figures  of  animals  cannot  be  mistaken,  has  added  also  the  bull 
and  the  eagle.  The  cherubim  are  in  any  case  to  be  so  interpreted,  that  the  latest 
form  in  Ezekiel  shall  be  taken  only  as  a  development  of  what  originally  was  in- 
volved in  the  symbol. 

Our  inquiry  into  the  meaning  of  the  cherubim  must  start  from  the  fact  that,  as 
has  been  already  remarked,  they  designate  a  place  as  the  abode  of  the  habitation 
of  God  (Paradise,  the  tabernacle,  and  later  the  temple),  and  are  thus  the  bearers 
of  the  manifestation  of  God  when  He  manifests  Himself  to  the  world  in  His 
glory  ;  on  which  account  they  are  called  God's  chariot  (1  Chron.  xxviii.  18, 
comp.  Ps.  xviii.  11).  Since,  now,  in  Gen.  iii.  24  they  bar  the  entrance  to  Para- 
dise, and  since  in  Ex.  xxv.  20  they  protect  and  shade  the  ark,  the  first  element 
in  their  function  is  to  express  to  man's  consciousness  the  inaccessibility  of  the 
Divine  Being.     They  reflect  the  glory  of  the  unapproachable  God  in  a  form  which 


200   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCKACY.    [§  119. 

is  accessible  for  humau  eyes,  but  at  tlie  same  time  is  so  constructed  (as  Riehm 
rightly  urges)  that  they  could  give  no  support  to  the  worship  of  images.  But  in 
admitting  this,  we  have  not  yet  done  full  justice  to  the  symbol,  especially  in  its 
most  developed  form.  By  uniting  in  itself  the  noblest  earthly  living  creatures, 
— man,  the  eagle,  the  lion,  the  bull, — and  connecting  with  them  also  flowers  and 
palms  as  representatives  of  the  vigor  of  life  that  displays  itself  in  the  vegetable 
kingdom,  the  symbol  is  evidently  meant  more  particularly  to  set  forth  the  divine 
glory  as  it  is  manifested  in  the  world,  and  thereby  to  teach  men  to  know  the  vital 
powers  which  work  in  the  world  as  the  efflux  of  the  divine  glory.  It  is  the  cher- 
ubim, as  Schultz  (Alttest.  Theologie,  p.  575)  well  expresses  it,  "which  at  one  and 
the  same  time  proclaim  and  veil  His  presence. ' '  The  lion  and  the  bull  are,  as  is 
well  known,  symbols  of  power  and  strength  ;  man  and  the  eagle  are  symbols  of 
wisdom  and  omniscience  ;  the  latter  attribute  is  also  expressed  in  the  later  form 
of  the  symbol  by  the  multitude  of  eyes.  The  continual  mobility  of  the  ^ua,  Rev. 
iv.  8,  signifies  the  never-resting  quickness  of  the  divine  operations  ;  this  is  prob- 
ably symbolized  also  by  the  wheels  which  are  given  to  the  cherubim  in  Ezek.  i., 
in  which,  as  is  there  said,  "  the  Spirit  of  the  Living  One"  is.  The  numher  four, 
connected  with  the  cherubim  in  the  later  form  of  the  symbol,  is  the  signature  of 
all-sidedness  (toward  the  four  quarters  of  heaven).  Thus  Jehovah,  when  He  is 
honored  as  He  who  is  enthroned  above  the  cherubim,  is  acknowledged  as  the  Ood 
who  rules  the  world  on  all  sides  in  power,  wisdom,  and  omniscience.  Instead  of 
natural  powers  working  unconsciously,  is  placed  the  all-embracing,  conscious 
activity  of  the  Living  God,  the  God  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh,  and  hereby  the 
whole  view  of  nature  in  the  Old  Testament  is  defined  ;  comp.,  for  example,  the 
view  of  the  thunderstorm  in  Ps.  xviii.  11.  By  this  exposition  of  the  cherubim 
we  are  to  determine  the  meaning  of  the  invocation  in  Ps.  Ixxx.  1  :  "  Thou  Shep- 
herd of  Israel,  who  art  enthroned  upon  the  cherubim,  shine  forth  !" 

The  philological  explanation  of  the  term  is  altogether  uncertain.  The  Rabbin- 
ical interpretation,  which  Hengstenberg  has  accepted,  and  which  regards  the 
word  as  made  up  from  the  ^  of  comparison  and  3^,  and  gives  it  the  meaning 
"equal  to  many,"  "like  a  multitude,"  i.e.  the  union  of  plurality,  assumes  a  far 
too  monstrous  etymological  formation.  The  view  of  Umbreit  and  others,  who 
hold  that  31"!^  is  formed  by  a  transposition  from  ^^3"),  and  denotes  the  divine 
chariot,  is  more  plausible  ;  and  in  fact  the  cherubim  are  called  n!l2'i^  in  1  Chron. 
xxviii.  18;  comp.  again  Ps.  xviii.  11.  If  we  derive  the  word  from  2''\D,  various 
explanations  are  possible,  on  account  of  the  ambiguity  of  the  stem.  In  Syriac,  the 
stem  means,  to  carve  ;  hence  some  explain  31"13  by  yTiVKTov,  carved  work  =  imag- 
ery, from  which  Keil  gets  the  word  to  mean  "  figments  of  the  imagination,"  and 
Hiivernick  (Alttest.  Theologie,  ed.  2,  p.  95),  creatures  of  the  ideal  world.  In  Arabic, 
the  stem  hai-aba  means  to  lace,  and  then  to  straighten,  to  distress  ;  so  others  give 
the  word  the  meaning — alarming,  horrible  creatures.  Others,  again,  have  got 
at  the  signification  nobilis  princ^ps,  by  the  combination  of  313  and  D"13.  Still 
others  give  to  the  stem  313  the  meaning  dpirdl^eiv,  to  snatch,  so  that  the  cherubim 
would  be  designated  by  their  sweeping  power,  which  makes  them,  so  to  speak, 
a  sort  of  harpies.  Frequently  the  word  3n3  has  been  compared  with  the  Greek 
ypvi),  the  griflSn,  that  fabulous  animal  of  the  East  which  watched  over  hidden 


§   120.]  OK   THE   IDEA   OF   OFFERINGS  IN   GENERAL.  2G1 

treasures  ;  and  for  this  view  special  reference  is  made  to  Ezek.  xxviii.  14  ff. 
where  the  king  of  Tyre,  who  walked  m  Eden  on  the  mount  of  God  between 
stones  of  fire,  and  covered  and  protected  them  with  his  outspread  wings,  is  com- 
pared to  a  cherub.  The  sense  of  the  passage,  however,  is  clear  from  what  we 
have  already  learned.  The  king  of  Tyre,  who  deifies  himself,  is  called  a  cherub 
because  he  looks  on  himself  as  the  guardian  of  the  divine  dwelling-place,  in  whom 
is  reflected  the  majesty  of  God. 

(1)  Literature  :  Riehm,  De  natura  et  ratione  symbolica  Cherulorum  (Programm), 
1864  ;  Hengstenberg,  Tlie  Books  of  Moses  and  Egypt,  p.  161  ff.  ;  as  also  his  essay 
in  answer  to  Riehm,  in  the  Evang.  Kirchemeitung,  1866  (May  and  June),  reprinted 
in  his  Commentary  on  Ezekiel  at  the  end  of  the  first  part,  p.  499  ff.,  in  which  is  de- 
fended the  earlier  conception  of  Bahr,  Hengstenberg,  and  others.  [Riehm's  view 
is  restated,  with  modifications  and  additions,  in  the  Stud.  u.  Krit.  for  1871.  See 
also  his  articles  "  Bundeslade"  and  "Cherubim"  in  \\\s  Handwortei-buch.  For  the 
argument  in  favor  of  the  purely  Semitic  origm  of  the  word  and  its  Assyrian 
meaning,  see  Lenormant,  Begimdngs  of  History,  transl.  from  the  French,  with  an 
Introduction,  by  Prof.  Francis  Brown,  N.  Y.,  1883,  pp.  116-145.— D.] 

(2)  Hengstenberg  says  :  "  Thus  we  see  that  originally  they  did  not  belong  to  the 
sphere  of  revelation,  but  to  the  sphere  of  natural  religion"  {Comment,  on  Ezek.  i. 
p.  254). 

(3)  Hengstenberg  finds  that  this  symbol  occurs  no  less  than  eighty-five  times  in 
the  Old  Testament  (I.e.  p.  499). 

(4)  Riehm  :  just  on  this  account  it  was  not  found  necessary  to  describe  them 
more  in  detail. 

(5)  Comp.  Schultz,  Alttest.  Theol.  p.  572  jff. 


n.    THE   ACTIONS   OP   THE   MOSAIC   WORSHIP    (1). 

§  120. 

Introductory  Remarks:  1.    On  the  Idea  of  Offerings  in  General. 

The  actions  of  worship  fall  under  the  general  notion  of  offerings.  The  essential 
nature  of  an  offering  in  general  is  the  devotion  of  man  to  God,  e.r2}ressed  in  an  outxcard 
act.  Man  feels  impelled  to  express,  in  actions  which  he  directs  exchisively  to  God, 
partly  his  dependence  on  God  in  general  (in  virtue  of  which  he  knows  that  he  is 
dependent  on  God  in  his  being  and  his  possessions,  in  his  active  and  passive  life), 
and  partly  the  special  relations  in  which  he  is  placed  toward  God.  True,  the  in- 
ward impulse  which  impels  man  to  praise,  thank,  and  supplicate  God  finds  ex- 
pression in  words  of  devotion  ;  but  this  impulse  is  not  fully  satisfied  till  this  word 
is,  as  it  were,  embodied  in  a  corresponding  action,  in  which  man  dejjrives  and  de- 
nies himself  of  something,  and  thus  by  deeds  testifies  the  earnestness  of  his  devotion 
to  God.  Under  the  idea  of  offering,  in  the  widest  sense  of  the  word,  are  also  to  be 
reckoned  the  observances  of  sacred  abstinence  ;  to  which  belong,  in  the  Mosaic 
system,  fasting,  the  Nazarite  vow,  and  the  Levitical  acts  of  purification, — forms 
of  observances  which  in  heathen  religions  sometimes  rise  to  the  most  hideous  self- 
torture  and  self-mutilation.  In  the  narrower  sense,  however,  the  idea  of  offering 
(corresponding  to  its  derivation  from  offerre)  refers  to  positive  acts,  which  consist 
in  the  presentation  of  a  gift.     In  this  sense  it  is  designated  ift  the  Old  Testament 


262   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  120. 

by  the  terms  nn^O  (in  the  more  general  signification  in  which  the  word  stands  in 
Gen.  iv.  3  ff.,  but  never  in  the  sacrificial  laws),  K'np  i)MP\D  (Ex.  xxviii.  38),  but 
generally  by  |2")R,  that  is,  presentation  (IVIark  vii.  11  :  Kopfidv  o  kan  6upov).  The 
oHering  may  be  made  in  such  a  way  that  the  object  presented  remains  intact,  but 
henceforth  is  placed  exclusively  at  the  disposition  of  the  Divinity  (to  this  head 
belong  the  gifts  of  dedication,— for  which  in  Num.  vii.  3  ff. ,  xxxi.  50,  the  word 
J3"ij"5  is  likewise  used, — those  persons  who  were  dedicated  to  the  service  of  the 
sanctuary,  etc.),  or  in  such  a  way  that  what  is  offered  is  at  once  used  up  in  honor 
of  the  Divinity  in  some  manner.  In  the  latter  case,  the  act  of  devotion  is  gener- 
ally completed  in  the  consumption  of  the  gift,  or  at  least  a  part  of  it,  by  the  fire 
on  the  altar  (0310).  This  is  what  is  meant  by  offering  in  the  most  limited  sense,  of 
which  in  the  Old  Testament  the  designation  is  Ht^N,  i.e.  "firing"  [E.  V.  an  offer- 
ing made  by  fire],  a  term  used  in  speaking  of  all  offerings  which  were  brought  to 
the  altar,  whether  they  were  wholly  or  partially  burnt  (comp.  Lev.  i.  9,  17,  ii.  3, 
iii.  3,  9,  iv.  35,  v.  12,  etc.)  (2). — An  essential  factor  in  the  offering  is  snbstittition, 
which  can  take  place  in  a  twofold  way,- — iirst,  when  the  person  who  brings  the 
offering  is  represented  ])y  the  gift  substituted  in  his  room  ;  and  secondly,  when 
something  is  substituted  for  the  object  to  be  offered.  The  latter  case  generally 
occurs  in  the  shape  of  the  representation  of  a  whole  class  of  things  by  a  part  of 
the  class  which  is  selected  to  be  offered  (as  in  the  case  of  the  first-born  and  of  the 
firstlings  of  the  harvest),  but  sometimes  as  strict  substitution,  so  that  what  fell  to 
be  offered,  but  from  some  cause  or  other  was  not  fit  to  be  offered,  was  replaced 
by  an  object  of  a  connected  kind  (comp.  Ex.  xiii.  13,  xxxiv.  20),  or  some  other 
surrogate  (3).  The  idea  of  substitution  is  hrought  out  most  fully  when  another 
life  is  offered  in  the  place  of  the  life  of  the  person  who  offers  ;  but  the  idea  of 
substitution  reaches  much  further  than  this,  inasmuch  as  there  is  self-renunciation 
in  every  real  sacrifice, — the  offerer  putting,  so  to  speak,  apart  of  himself  into  his 
gift,  whether  impelled  by  love  and  thankfulness,  or  by  fear  of  the  vengeance  of 
God,  to  which  he  knows  himself  or  something  he  possesses  to  be  exposed.  With 
this  it  agrees  that  no  real  offering  can  be  made  of  another  man's  possession  (com- 
pare 2  Sam.  xxiv.  24),  but  only  of  what  is  already  one's  property,  or  could  at 
least  (as  in  the  case  of  booty)  be  held  as  such,  and  that  in  the  willingness  to 
acknowledge  God's  higher  right  of  property  to  one's  own  possession,  and  to  give 
up  to  Him  even  what  is  dearest,  it  is  that  the  genuine  spirit  of  sacrifice  is  proved, 
as  is  expressed  in  the  story  in  Gen.  xxii. 

(1)  Literature  :  Outram,  De  sacrificiis  libri  duo,  1678  [Two  dissertations  on  Sac- 
rifices, transl.  by  John  Allen,  1817]  ;  Saubert,  de  sacrificiis  veterum,  1699  ;  Sykes, 
[Essay  on  Sacrifices,  1748]  Versuchiiber  die  Nat^ir,  AhsicM  und  den  Ursprung  der 
Offer,  with  notes  and  additions  by  Semler,  1778.  In  more  modern  times  compare 
Scholl,  on  the  sacrificial  ideas  of  the  ancients,  especially  the  Jews,  in  the  Studien  der 
evang.  OeistlicJilceit  Wurttembergs,  i.,  iv.,  and  v.  ;  Biihr,  Symholilc  des  mos.  Kultus, 


1852,  Nos.  30-33  ;  1853,  Nos.  40-44  ;  Hofmann,  Schriftleweis,  ii.  1,  ed.  2,  p.  214 
ff.  ;  Keil,  "Die  Opfer  des  A.  Bundes,"  in  the  Luther.  ZeitscTir.  1856  f. ;  Delitzsch, 
Commentary  on  Hebrews;  my  article,  "  Opferkultus  des  A.  T.,"  in  Herzoo-'s 
B.E.  X.  p.  (514  ff.;  Kurtz,  The  Sacrificed  W"^rs/iipofthe  Old  Testament,  1863  ;  Kile- 


§   121.]        THE    BASIS    OF   THE    MOSAIC    SACRIFICIAL   WORSHIP.  263 

foth,  "  UebtT  den  alttcst.  Kultus,"  in  the  4tli  volume  of  liis  Litnrg.  Ahhandhing.  ; 
Wanjremann,  Das  Offer  nach  Lehre  der  h.  Schrift,  3  vols.,  1866  ;  Delitzsch,  art. 
"  Opfer, "  in  Riehm.     Other  books  will  be  referred  toin  the  following  pages. 

(2)  n^X  cannot  be  used  of  what  is  not  to  be  burnt.  That  the  incense  which  was 
laid  cold  upon  the  shewbread  is  so  called  (Lev.  xxiv.  7)  is  explained  by  the  fact 
that  it  was  really  burnt  np  when  the  shewbread  was  removed  (see  Josephus,  Ant. 
iii.  10.  7). 

(3)  Among  the  Egyptians  we  find  substitution  of  artificial  figures  of  animals. 
Herodotus,  ii.  47,  says  that  the  poor  baked  pigs  of  dough  to  offer.  See  other  ex- 
amples in  Hermann,  Gottesdienstlichen  Alterthumer  der  Qriechen,  ed.  3,  p.  146  ; 
compare  also  Hartung,  Religion  der  Rdmer,  i.  p.  160  f. 


§121. 

Continuation :  2.  Pre-Mosaic  Sacrifice  and  the  Mosaic  Covenant  Sacrifice  as  the  Basis 
of  the  Mosaic  Sacrificial  Worship. 

Sacrifice  was  not  newly  introduced  by  the  Mosaic  law.  Genesis  not  only  speaks 
of  sacrifice  as  observed  by  the  patriarchs,  but,  in  Gen.  iv.,  carries  back  the  pre- 
senting of  offerings  to  the  earliest  age  of  mankind  (comp.  §20).  As  has  been 
shown  above  (§  20  f.),  the  pre-Mosaic  offerings  had  the  signification  of  iAanA;-(?j'fer- 
ings  and  offerings  of  siipplicatioji,  though  a  propitiatory  element  is  connected  with 
the  burnt-offering  (first  mentioned  Gen.  viii.  20)  lying  in  the  niTJ  n").  (literally, 
odor  of  satisfaction),  through  which  the  sacrifice  has  an  appeasing  effect,  seever. 
21  (1).  Offerings  for  atonement,  in  the  strict  sense,  are  not  mentioned  in  the 
Old  Testament  before  the  introduction  of  the  Mosaic  sacrificial  law  (2).  The 
book  of  Job,  too,  which  brings  before  us  the  customs  of  the  age  of  the  patriarchs, 
represents,  in  chap.  i.  5,  xlii.  8,  the  presenting  of  burnt-offerings  for  sin  com- 
mitted, and  avoids  the  term  "l??,  which  denotes  expiation  in  the  terminology  of 
Mosaic  sacrifice  (giving,  instead,  the  more  general  term  ^"^.p).  Besides  the  burnt- 
offering,  we  find  in  patriarchal  times  "sacrifice"  (n3?)  with  the  sacrificial  feast 
(comp.  Iken,  dissert,  ii.  1,  p.  6  ff.)  first  mentioned  in  Gen.  xxxi.  54,  where  it 
serves  to  ratify  the  covenant  concluded  between  Jacob  and  Laban,  and  so  ends  in 
a  meal  of  peace  (further,  xlvi.  1,  comp.  Ex.  x.  25,  xviii.  12).  Also,  in  xx.  24, 
xxiv.  5,  only  burnt-offerings  and  shdamim  are  mentioned.  For  an  expiatory 
offering,  in  the  strict  sense,  presupposes  the  revelation  of  divine  holiness  in  the 
law,  and  the  entrance  of  the  people  into  covenant  relation  with  the  holy  God.  The 
transition  to  this  point,  and  at  the  same  time  the  foundation  of  the  whole  system  of 
Mosaic  offerings,  is  formed  by  the  covenant-offering  in  Ex.  xxiv.,  especially  in 
virtue  of  the  meaning  which  here  for  the  first  time  (apart  from  the  institution  of 
the  Passover)  attaches  to  the  Wood  of  the  sacrifice.  Moses  set  up  an  altar,  which 
represented  the  presence  of  Jehovah,  and  (probably  round  it)  twelve  pillars  as 
memorials  of  the  twelve  tribes.  This  preparation  of  a  place  of  sacrifice  already 
points  to  the  communion  between  Jehovah  and  His  people  now  to  be  established, 
in  virtue  of  which  He  wishes  to  have  His  dwelling  in  the  midst  of  the  latter. 
After  this,  Moses  causes  burnt-offerings  and  shelamim  to  be  presented  by  young 
men.  These  young  men  do  not,  as  Kurtz  (3)  has  understood  the  matter,  represent 
"the  sacrificing  nation  in  its  youth  as  a  people,  which,  like  a  young  man,  is  pre- 


264   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [^  121. 

pared  to  begiu  its  course,"  for  (comp.  Hofmann,  Schrl/'tbetoeis,  ii.  1,  ed.  1,  p.  151) 
it  is  not  the  people  who  here  bring  an  offering  for  themselves  ;  the  covenant  com- 
munion with  God,  in  virtue  of  which  the  people  approaches  Him  in  the  offering, 
is  first  to  be  established  ;  besides,  the  representatives  of  the  congregation  are, 
vers.  1  and  9,  the  seventy  elders.  It  is  Moses  rather, — the  appointed  mediator  of 
the  covenant, — who,  acting  in  the  quality  of  priest,  here  brings  the  covenant- 
offering,  and  the  young  men  are  merely  his  servants  (4).  Moses  now  takes  the 
half  of  the  blood  of  the  offering,  and  sprinkles  it  on  the  altar  ;  then  he  reads  the 
book  of  the  covenant  to  the  people  ;  and  after  the  people  have  again  promised 
fidelity  to  the  law,  he  sprinkles  them  with  the  other  half  of  the  blood,  saying  : 
"Behold,  the  blood  of  the  covenant  which  Jehovah  concludes  with  you  over 
these  words."  The  halving  of  the  blood  certainly  refers  to  the  two  parties  of  the 
covenant,  which  now  are  brought  together  in  a  unity  of  life — not,  however,  in  the 
sense  in  which  two  contracting  parties  mix  their  blood  in  the  heathenish  usages 
cited  by  Knobel  [but  not  by  Dillmann]  on  this  passage  ;  for  the  blood  of  the 
offered  sacrifice  belongs  entirely  to  Jehovah,  and  the  sprinkling  of  the  people  with 
a  part  of  it  rather  signifies  an  appropriation  of  the  people  on  God's  jjart.  Accord- 
ing to  the  significance  which  from  this  time  forth  was  to  attach  to  the  blood, 
and  which  will  be  discussed  more  particularly  afterward  (§  137), — a  significance 
which  the  people  wercalready  prepared  to  understand  by  the  manipulation  of  the 
blood  at  the  first  Passover  (Ex.  xii.  22), — the  act  of  sacrifice  before  us  is  to  be 
understood  as  follows  : — The  mediator  of  the  covenant  first  offers  to  God  in  the 
blood  a  pure  life^  which  comes  in  between  God  and  the  peo2:)le,  covering  and 
atoning  for  the  latter.  In  this  connection  the  sprinkling  of  the  altar  does  not 
merely  signify  God's  acceptance  of  the  blood,  but  at  the  same  time  serves  to  con- 
secrate the  place  in  which  Jehovah  enters  into  intercourse  with  his  people.  But 
when  a  portion  of  the  blood  accepted  by  God  is  further  applied  to  the  people  by 
an  act  of  sprinkling,  this  is  meant  to  signify  that  the  same  life  which  is  offered  up 
in  atonement  for  the  people  is  also  intended  to  consecrate  the  people  themselves 
to  covenant  fellowship  with  God.  The  act  of  consecration  thus  becomes  an  act 
of  renewal  of  life, — a  translation  of  Israel  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  in  which  it 
is  filled  with  divine  vital  energy,  and  is  sanctified  to  be  a  kingdom  of  priests,  a 
holy  people  (5).  The  procedure  at  the  dedication  of  the  priests  (Ex.  xxix.  21  ; 
Lev.  viii.  ;50)  is  quite  analogous  (comp.  §  95).  So  the  blood  of  the  covenant,  like 
the  bloody  token  in  Ex.  xii.  23,  separates  the  chosen  people  from  the  world,  and 
hence  its  significance  as  a  pledge,  Zech.  ix.  11  (which  passage  clearly  refers  to  Ex. 
xxiv.).  The  sacrificial  feast  forms  the  close  of  the  whole  festival,  at  which  the 
elders  of  Israel,  who,  ver.  2,  before  the  sacrifice,  durst  not  approach  Jehovah,  but 
are  now  atoned  for,  get  a  view  of  God,  and  eat  and  drink  before  Him  as  a  pledge 
and  testimony  of  the  way  in  which,  in  the  communion  of  the  covenant,  Jehovah's 
nearness  is  to  be  experienced  and  the  richness  of  His  benefits  enjoyed. — In  this 
first  Mosaic  act  of  offering  (the  Passover  is  an  offering  only  in  the  wider  sense, 
§  134)  is  already  expressed  the  character  of  the  ordinances  of  worship  which  arise 
on  the  basis  of  the  covenant  now  concluded.  The  covenant  is  to  subsist  on  offer- 
ings,— under  the  condition  of  offerings  to  be  presented  (n^T  'Sj;.,  Ps.  1.  5), — for  the 
people  are  not  to  approach  their  God  with  empty  hands  (Ex.  xxiii.  15  ;  Deut. 
xvi.   16  f.).     In  order,  however,  to  make  such  an  approach  possible  to  the  sinful 


§   121.]       THE   BASIS    OF   THE    MOSAIC    SACRIFICIAL   WORSHIP.  265 

people,  and  to  secure  the  duration  of  the  covenant,  which  is  continually  en- 
dangered by  the  guilt  of  the  congregation,  God  institutes  an  ordinance  of 
atonement,  which  is  principally  carried  out  in  acts  of  worship  specifically  expiatory, 
but  which  also  runs  througli  the  whole  of  the  rest  of  the  worship  ;  in  all  parts  of 
which,  but  especially  by  the  use  which  is  from  this  time  forward  made  of  the 
Mood  of  the  sacrifice  at  the  burnt-and  thank-o£ferings,  the  idea  is  expressed  that 
man  may  never  ajyproach  God  without  previous  atonement, — that  this  must  be  accom- 
plished before  he  can  expect  that  his  gift  will  be  favorably  received  by  God.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  not  correct  to  call  atonement  the  leading  idea  of  Mosaic  sacri- 
fice, in  the  sense  that  every  offering  is  to  be  classed  under  this  idea.  It  is  rather 
the  case  that  the  gift  or  offering,  in  the  strict  sense, — that  which  really  conies 
upon  the  altar,— ^oZZows  on  the  completion  of  the  atoning  act.  (The  right  under- 
standing of  sacrifice  depends  essentially  on  the  distinction  between  these  two 
elements.) 

In  speaking  now  of  the  ritual  of  Mosaic  offerings,  we  begin  with  offerings  in  the 
narrower  sense,  which  are  laid  upon  the  altar,  and  so  immediately  given  over 
to  Jehovah.  As  we  treat  of  these,  we  shall  bring  in  also,  in  their  proper  places, 
the  remaining  kinds  of  korban  [gift]  which  were  offered  to  Jehovah  only  indirectly 
— that  is,  by  payment  to  the  jjriests  or  Levites  respectively  (the  first-born  and 
tithes,  also  the  shewbread,  comp.  §  117,  may  be  reckoned  with  these)  (6). 

(1)  The  second  offering  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament  (Gen.  viii.  20)  is  that 
which  was  offered  by  Noah  after  the  Flood,  taken  from  all  clean  cattle  and  all 
clean  birds — th  it  is,  from  those  animals  which  were  appointed  for  the  food  of 
man.  It  was  offered  as  a  burnt-sacrifice  on  an  altar,  from  which  the  odor  as- 
cended to  the  God  enthroned  in  heaven,  and  pleased  Him  (ver.  21).  The  motive 
of  this  offering  is  mainly  thanksgiving  for  the  deliverance  experienced.  Of  ex- 
piation for  offences  committed  there  is  no  mention,  since  in  fact,  the  judgment 
at  which  Noah  was  regarded  as  righteous  before  God,  has  been  executed. 
And  yet,  as  is  shown  by  ver.  21,  there  is  even  here  something  more  than  a  thank- 
offering.  Man  draws  near  to  God  in  the  offering,  seeking  at  the  same  time  grace 
for  the  future,  after  having  seen  the  severity  of  God's  penal  justice  (comp.  the 
explanation  of  the  passage  by  Josephus,  Aiit.  i.  3.  7).  And  God  graciously  accepts 
this  ;  He  is  willing,  in  answer  to  such  a  request  for  grace,  to  spare  man,  who 
would  always  draw  down  new  judgments  of  extermination  on  himself  by  his  sin- 
fulness. Thus  far  it  is  correct  to  say,  that  here  we  have  a  first  elementary  and 
symbolic  expression  of  the  necessity  of  an  atonement  before  God  (O.  v.  Gerlach 
on  this  passage). — From  the  passages  Gen.  iv.  and  viii.  20,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
what  answer  "the  Old  Testament  gives  to  the  long-disputed  question,  which  is 
mainly  connected  with  the  first  of  these  passages, — namely,  whether  tlie  origin  of 
sacrifice  is  to  be  traced  back  to  a  positive  divine  command,  or  to  human  invent  um 
and  caprice  (comp.  on  this  controversy  in  particular,  Deyling,  "de  sacrifices 
Habelis  atque  Caini,"  in  the  Ohserv.  sacrce,  ed.  3,  ii.  p.  53  ff.  ;  Carpzov,  App.  ant. 
p.  699  ff.  ;  Outram,  Be  sacrificiis,  i.  1,  where  the  various  views  are  compared 
in  detail).  In  this  way  of  putting  the  question,  the  alternative  is  not  correctly 
formulated.  For  if  the  first  view  is  untenable,  since  there  is  no  trace  of  a  divine 
command  to  present  offerings  in  the  context  of  either  passage,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  the  whole  character  of  the  two  narratives  points  to  a  deed  which  has 
no  value  apart  from  its  spontaneousness  (comp.  Nagelsbach,  Der  Gottmensch,  i.  p. 
335  ff.,  where  also  the  arguments  of  Deyling  are  examined),  yet,  on  the  other 
side,  both  passages  represent  this  ivee  act  as  one  thoronirh\y  agi-eeable  to  the  divine 
will;  and  there  is  in  them  no  trace  of  a  mere  divine  condescension,  from  which, 
as  IS  well  known,  Spencer  {De  leg.  hebr.  rit.  iii,  diss,  ii.)  sought  to  explain  the  Old 


206    THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  121. 

Testament  sacrifices.  Man  is  not  first  impelled  to  make  offerings  by  the  rudeness 
of  his  nature,  to  which  God  must  make  some  indulgence  lest  something  woi'se  come 
instead  (corap.  Spencer,  in  Pfaff's  ed.  p.  754)  ;  he  does  not  offer  sacrifice  by  force 
of  his  natural  badness,  as  we  should  be  obliged  to  say  on  the  deistic  conception 
of  sacrifice,  which  does,  indeed,  in  a  manner,  give  a  correct  explanation  of  what 
sacrifice  degenerated  into  ;*  but  man  offers  in  virtue  of  his  inalienable  divine  image, 
which  makes  it  impossible  for  him  to  abstain  from  seeking  that  communion  with 
God  for  which  he  was  created,  by  such  active  self-devotion  as  takes  place  in  of- 
ferings. Offerings  are  thus,  as  Neumann  (in  the  above-cited  essay,  Deutsche 
Zeitschr.  fur  christl.  Wissensch.  1853,  p.  328)  well  says,  "  free  exi^ressions  of  the 
divinely  constituted  nature  of  man,"  so  that  they  are  no  more  arbitrary  inventions 
than  prayer  is,  but  spring  in  the  same  way  as  prayer  from  an  inward  necessity,  to 
which  man  freely  yields.  The  passages  in  Genesis  which  treat  of  the  sacrificial  places 
of  the  patriarchs  (xii.  8,  xiii.  4,  xxvi.  25,  xxxiii.  20)  also  point  to  the  close  connec- 
tion between  the  service  of  sacrifice  and  prayer,  or  invocation  of  God.  [That  these 
altars  were  only  places  of  devotion,  and  not  of  sacrifice,  as  Delitzsch,  art.  "  Opfer" 
in  Riehm,  p.  1115,  observes,  is,  I  think,  not  probable]. — On  the  act  described  in 
Gen.  XV.,  comp.  §  80  ;  on  the  history  in  Gen.  xxii.,  comp.  §  23,  with  note  9.  The 
latter  narrative  is  important  for  the  development  of  the  Old  Testament  idea  of 
offering.  In  it  is  expressed,  in  the  first  place,  the  divine  sanction  of  sacrifice  in 
general  as  the  proof  of  man's  believing  devotion  to  God  ;  and  in  the  second 
place,  the  declaration  that  such  devotion  is  to  be  proved  by  readiness  to  part 
with  even  the  dearest  possession  out  of  obedience  to  God  ;  while,  thirdly, 
human  sacrifice  is  banished  out  of  the  region  of  the  religion  of  revelation  ;  and 
fourthly,  the  acceptance  of  an  animal  victim  as  the  substitute  of  man  is  ordained. 
In  the  whole  story  there  is  no  mention  of  an  atonement  for  the  obtaining  of  which 
Isaac  was  to  die  ;  and  therefore  the  offering  of  the  ram  cannot  have  the  mean- 
ing of  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  of  a  vicarious  kind. 

(2)  Compare  what  Nagelsbach,  Uomer.  Theol.  ed.  2,  p.  352,  remarks  on  sacrifice 
in  the  Homeric  times.  "  Man's  willingness  to  honor  the  god  with  such  enjoy- 
ment (the  vapor  of  the  fat)  is  what  makes  the  offering  pleasant  to  the  latter  ;  and 
there  is  no  difference  in  this  respect  between  an  offering  of  atonement  and  any 
other  offering.  That  atonement  in  general  depends  only  on  the  paying  of  honor 
to  the  Deity,  on  the  acknowledgment  of  his  might  and  the  expression  in  act  of 
man's  feeling  of  dependence,  is  plain  from  the  fact  that  other  services  are  also 
sufficient  to  conciliate  the  deity.''      [Above  art.] 

(3)  See  Kurtz,  History  of  the  Old  Covenant,  ii.  p.  143  ;  also  his  Alttest.  OpferTcultus, 
p.  278. 

(4)  The  indefinite  mention  of  the  young  men,  and  the  fact  that  nothing  is  said 
of  their  being  twelve  in  number,  or  the  like,  is  in  favor  of  this  view. 

(5)  Comp.  Keil,  Bibl.  Archaol.  i.  p.  260. 

(6)  In  describing  the  regulations  concerning  offerings,  we  treat,  1.  of  the  mate- 
rial of  the  offering  and  the  classification  of  offerings  which  is  given  from  this 
point  of  view  ;  2.  of  the  actions  of  which  offerings  are  made  up,  or  the  ritual 
of  offering  ;  3.  of  the  genera  and  species  into  which  the  offerings  fall  according  to 
their  design. 

*  According  to  Blount,  wicked  men  offer  because  they  who  do  not  like  to  do  favors  to  one  another  for 
nothing  juduje  the  Divinity  in  tlio  same  way  ;  according  to  Tindal,  they  sacrifice  because  they  imagine 
that  the  cruel  God  delights  in  the  slaughter  of  innocent  creatures,— a  delusion  which  was  then  made 
use  of  by  the  selfish  corporation  of  priests  in  order  to  introduce  the  ritual  ordinances  established  by 
themselves.  Svc  l^ocMer,  GA'ichichte  des  englischen  Deismus,pTp.  119,338.  On  Shuckfoi-d  a  argument 
ou  the  other  side,  see  §  13,  note  C. 


§    122.]  BLOODY   AND   BLOODLESS   OFFERINGS.  267 

1.    THE  MATERIAL   OP   THE   OFFERINGS. 
§123. 

Bloody  and  Bloodless  Offerings. 

According  to  their  material,  offerings  are  partly  bloody  and  partly  bloodless. 
Bloody  offerings  are  exclusively  animal  offerings.  Human  sacrifice  (which  the  in- 
sane criticism  of  Ghillauy,  Die  Mensclienoffer  der  alien  Hehriier,  1842,  and  of  other 
writers  represents  as  even  an  essential  part  of  the  Mosaic  worship)  was  excluded 
from  the  legitimate  worship  of  God.  This  follows,  as  we  have  already  seen,  from 
Gen.  xxii.  11,  and  then  from  what  is  commanded  in  Ex.  xiii.  13,  xxxiv.  20,  as  to 
the  redemption  of  the  first-born  of  mankind  (cf.  §  105).  To  offer  children  as  they 
were  offered  to  Moloch  (Lev.  xviii.  21,  xx.  2  ff.),  and  as  was  generally  the  custom 
among  the  Semitic  nations  (1),  is  called  an  abomination,  Deut.  xii.  31.  Man  has 
by  the  law  no  other  power  over  human  life  than  that  of  the  execution  of  judg- 
ment (comp.  §§  99  and  108).  Even  the  OlD,  the  exterminating  curse  or  ban 
(§  134),  is  intended  to  serve  to  glorify  God's  punitive  justice.  It  may  be  classed 
in  a  sense  under  the  head  of  offerings  in  a  wider  sense,  as  in  Lev.  xxvii.  28  it  stands 
among  things  sacred  (comp.  also  Isa.  xxxiv.  5  f.,  Jer.  xlvi.  10,  where  even  the 
word  npT  is  used  for  it).  But  the  hherem,  by  which  a  thing  or  person  is  swept 
aioay  from  before  Jehovah  (comp.  e.g.  1  Sam.  xv.  33),  stands  in  direct  antithesis 
to  offerings  in  the  narrower  sense,  to  the  gift  offered  on  the  altar.  Thus,  too, 
that  act  of  revenge  by  the  Gibeonites  allowed  by  David,  2  Sam.  xxi.  9,  in  which 
a  bloody  revenge,  exceeding  that  demanded  by  the  law,  was  executed,  is  not  to 
be  regarded  as  properly  a  human  sacrifice.  It  is,  however,  clear  from  Ezek.  xx. 
26,  that  the  sacrifices  of  children  which  occurred  in  [idolatrous]  Israel  were  con- 
nected with  a  wrong  application  of  the  law  of  primogeniture  (Ex.  xiii.  2,  11  f., 
xxii.  28)  (2). 

There  is  no  name  in  the  sacrificial  law  of  the  Pentateuch  which  designates 
generally  the  lloody  offering  ;  Lev.  i.  2  uses  the  circumlocution  nDn3n~|p  Il"!j^- 
The  word  n3T,  to  which  in  later  usage  the  more  general  meaning  (as  designating 
animal  sacrifice  generally)  cannot  be  denied,  is  used  in  the  Pentateuch  only 
of  Shelamim.  For  a  dry  vegetable  offering^  the  technical  term  is  nnjD  (A.  V.,  meat- 
offering ;  better,  food-offering)  ;  and  the  drinlc-oS^Qr'mg  which  was  added  to  the 
Minhha,  and  which  consisted  of  wine,  is  called  '^P^.. — Offerings  of  animals  are 
most  important,  chiefly  on  account  of  the  significance  attaching  to  the  blood. 
Food-offerings  certainly  appear  as  independent  gifts.  Lev.  v.  11  (as  a  substitute 
for  an  animal  offering)  ;  vi.  12  ff.  (as  a  priestly  offering  of  dedication)  ;  Num.  v. 
15  ff.  (as  the  jealousy-offering).  It  is  probable,  too,  that  the  food-offerings  de- 
scribed in  Lev.  ii.  could  be  presented  by  themselves  as  free-will  gifts  (3).  But  for 
the  most  part,  the  food-offerings,  and  tlie  drink-offerings  which  went  along  with 
them,  were  connected  with  animal-offerings.  Here,  indeed,  they  form  no  mere 
supplementary  gift  ;  they  are  rather  co-ordinate  with  that  part  of  the  animal 
which  is  laid  as  a  gift  on  the  altar.  But  since  they  also  have  as  their  presupposi- 
tion the  atonement  completed  by  the  manipulation  of  blood  at  the  offering  of  an 
animal,  they  are  in  fact  dependent  on  the  animal-offering.     This  dependence  is' 


268   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.     [§  123. 

seen  also  in  this,  that  the  quantity  of  the  food-and  drink-offerings  had  to  be  de- 
termined according  to  the  various  kinds  of  animals  to  which  they  were  annexed. 

(1)  See  Lasaulx,  die  Suhnopfer  der  Griechen  und  Romer^  p.  11. 

(2)  (Compare  Umbreit  on  this  passage.)  A  misunderstanding,  such  as  might 
easily  arise  in  the  zeal  for  sacrifice  depicted  in  Mic.  vi.  7,  even  apart  from  the 
probability  that,  in  the  idolatrous  minds  of  the  people,  the  Holy  One  of  Israel, 
whose  zeal  is  a  consuming  fire,  may  often  have  been  confounded  with  the  fire- 
god  Moloch.  When  it  is  said,  in  Ezek.  xx.  25  f.,  that  Jehovah  gave  them  stat- 
utes that  were  not  good,  on  account  of  their  falling  away,  to  destroy  them,  the 
offering  of  children  is  not  declared  to  be  agreeable  to  the  law  -,  but  the  passage 
is  to  be  understood  like  others  in  which  men  are.  said  to  be  given  over  to  what  is 
sinful  as  a  punishment  (comp.  §  76). 

(3)  So  the  Jewish  tradition  ;  comp.  Maimonides,  I.e.  p.  64  ;  also  Winer,  Beal-Lex. 
ed.  3,  ii.  p.  494  ;  and  Thalhofer,  I.e.  p.  51  ff. 

§133. 

The  Material  of  Animal  Offerings. 

In  reference  to  the  materials  of  animal  offerings,  it  is  laid  down  as  law  : 
1.  That  they  must  be  taken  from  among  the  clean  animals,  cf.  Lev.  xxvii.  9,  11.  In 
Lev.xi.  and  Deut.  xiv.the  Mosaic  law  distinguishes  clean  and  unclean  animals  in  the 
following  way  (1)  : — Of  the  larger  land  animals  (n?pn3),  all  those  are  clean  which 
have  cloven  hoofs  (that  is,  divided  quite  through)  and  which  chew  the  cud  ;  those 
which  have  not  these  two  characteristics,  or  have  only  one  of  them,  as  the  camel,  the 
hare,  the  pig,  etc.,  are  unclean.  Of  water  animals,  those  are  clean  that  have  fins 
and  scales.  With  respect  to  birds  (^U'))  iio  general  distinctive  characteristic  is 
given  ;  there  are  only  twenty  (in  Leviticus)  or  twenty-one  sorts  (in  Deuteronomy), 
including  the  bat  (^yCpj,'),  enumerated  by  name  as  unclean,  and  these  are  for  the 
most  part  birds  of  prey  and  waders,  also  the  stork  (HTpri).  In  the  whole  realm 
of  small  animals  i]'")^),  the  use  of  grasshoppers  is  alone  allowed  among  those 
that  have  wings  (^ij^H  |'"l^)  ;  while  of  those  that  crawl  and  creep  on  the  earth 
(]''?.?i7" 'J?  V"'^'^  V  v^*^)  none  are  allowed,  but  eight  kinds  are  expressly  forbidden 
(weasel,  mouse,  lizard,  etc.).  —  On  what  ground  does  this  distinction  rest?  The  view 
found  in  the  fourth  book  of  the  Maccabees,  v.  25,  tind  among  some  of  the  Rabbins, 
that  the  flesh  of  certain  creatures  is  injurious  to  the  soul  of  man,  that  is,  to  the 
understanding,  is  only  supported  by  a  false  explanation  of  Lev.  xi.  44  (2),  and 
cannot  possibly  be  applied  to  the  case  before  us,  even  were  it  not  certain  that 
doctrines  of  this  kind  are  quite  foreign  to  Mosaism.  With  reference  to  some  ani- 
mals (as  swine),  it  may  certainly  be  taken  as  possible  that  the  law  is  fixed  by  diet- 
etic considerations  ;  but  this  principle  is  nowhere  stated.  Nor  can  the  distinction 
between  clean  and  unclean  animals  be  traced  to  a  dualistic  view  of  creation, 
such  as  prevails  in  the  Zend  religion.  That  the  one  class  of  animals  belongs  to 
Jehovah,  and  not  the  other,  is  certainly  not  the  Mosaic  view.  Uncleanness  of 
certain  animals  is  spoken  of  only  so  far  as  they  are  thereby  excluded  from  being 
used  as  food  ;  but  even  unclean  animals  might  be  dedicated  to  Jehovah,  only 
they  had  to  be  redeemed.  Lev.  xxvii.  11  ff.  The  ground  of  the  matter  lies  generally 
in  the  principle  of  the  whole  law  (§  84),  that  the  people  of  Israel  should  impress  on 
every  sphere  of  life  the  stamp  by  which  it  acknowledges  itself  to  be  a  people  sep- 


§    123.]  TUE   MATERIAL   OF    ANIMAL   OFFERINGS.  269 

arated  by  Jehovah  and  dedicated  to  Him.  So  even  in  their  food  there  must  be  a 
separation  in  which  this  reference  to  Jehovah,  is  expressed,  comp.  Lev.  xx.  24-26  : 
"I  am  Jehovah  your  God,  who  have  separated  you  from  other  nations  ;  ye  shall 
therefore  put  a  difference  between  clean  beasts  and  unclean,"  etc.  But  in  the 
definition  of  those  animals  which  are  separated  as  unclean,  it  appears  that,  on  the 
one  hand,  the  principle  was  laid  down  that  all  Jiesh-eating  animals  were  necessari- 
ly to  be  accounted  unclean,  because  to  partake  of  llood  is  an  abomination.  So, 
too,  the  birds  enumerated  are  partly  birds  of  prey,  and  partly  such  as  feed  on 
worms  and  the  like.  To  these  are  added  all  animals  that  had  anything  repulsive  and 
hideous.  But  now,  in  order  to  arrive  at  a  fixed  rule  of  separation  among  the 
larger  land  animals,  it  was  natural  to  select  certain  common  2»'oj)erties  in  those  ani- 
mals the  flesh  of  which  had  always  been  looked  on  as  the  most  excellent  nourishment, 
and  by  these  to  define  the  clean  animals.  In  consequence  of  the  principle  thus 
derived,  the  camel,  the  hare,  and  also  (Ex.  xiii.  13,  xxxiv.  20)  the  ass  ("quia 
neque  ruminat,  neque  fissam  habet  ungulam"),  etc.,  were  excluded  ;  any  other 
ground  than  that  given  in  Lev.  xi.  4-6  could  hardly  have  existed  here  (3). 

2.  Of  clean  animals,  those  were.  Jit  for  offering  vihich  formed  the  projier  stock 
of  domesticated  animals, — cattle,  sheep,  and  goats  ;  both  sexes  might  be  offered, 
but  for  offerings  of  a  higher  character  males  alone  were  employed.  Of  fowl, 
turtle-doves  and  young  pigeons  were  offered.  The  former  are  to  be  met  with  so 
often  in  Palestine  as  birds  of  passage  that  it  was  not  necessary  to  rear  them 
specially  ;  they  formed  in  particular  the  animal  food  of  the  jioor,  and  this  explains 
their  use  in  offerings.  Pigeons  and  turtle-doves  might,  with  the  exception  of  a 
few  offerings  of  purification,  be  presented  only  by  the  poor,  as  a  substitute  for  the 
larger  animals  of  sacrifice  (Lev.  v.  7,  xii.  8). — No  part  of  the  produce  of  the  chase 
or  of  fishing  was  fit  to  be  offered.  The  animals  of  sacrifice  were  to  be  without 
Memish  (D'pri),  free  from  bodily  imperfections  (i^^n'ri'  X;  D13-72)  ;  see  especially 
Lev.  xsii.  21-24,  comp.  also  Mai.  i.  13  ;  an  exception  was  allowed  only  with  the 
n'unj  (on  this  hereafter,  §  132,  with  note  3).  "With  respect  to  the  age  of  the 
animals  offered,  the  law  commanded  that  they  should  at  least  be  eight  days  old 
(Lev.  xxii.  27,  comp.  with  Ex.  xxii.  29),  because  in  the  first  eight  days  every  new- 
born creature  was  accounted  unclean  (comp.  §  87)  ;  this  is  not  prescribed  for 
doves.  On  the  other  side,  the  animals  presented  were  also  to  be  in  the  vigor  of  youth 
(4).  The  age  is  more  precisely  defined  only  in  a  few  cases  :  for  cattle,  in  Lev.  ix. 
3,  where  a  one-year-old  ^^V..  is  demanded  ;  more  frequently  in  the  case  of  small 
cattle,  viz.  ix.  3,  xii.  6  ;  comp.  Num.  xxviii.  3,  9,  11,  where  a  ram  of  the  first 
year  (p^^  or  3K?|),  Lev.  xiv.  10,  wJier*^  a  female  of  the  first  year  (^t?'?^).  Num.  xv. 
27,  where  a  one-year-old  goat  (nnjt!/-n3  i;;)  is  prescribed.  The  older  animals 
among  the  cattle  are  designated  "13  and  H'^S  (on  the  contrary,  "^ii^  is  used  without 
respect  to  difference  of  age),  the  ram  by  Vx,  the  he-goat  by  "1'^;'  or  I'Xli'  (more 
fully,  D'U'  Trt;').  The  two  last-named  expressions  are  sharply  distinguished 
(comp.  Num.  vii.  16  and  17,  vers.  22  and  23,  etc.)  ;  it  is  probable  that  "^"V.^  signi- 
fies the  older  and  ~l^r\;»  the  younger  he-goat.  That,  as  the  Rabbins  declare,  animals 
for  sacrifice  were,  as  a  rule,  not  chosen  more  than  three  years  old,  does  not  rest 
on  an  express  command  of  the  law,  and  is  inferred,  perhaps,  only  from  Gen. 
XV.  9  ;  but  the  provision  is  quite  reasonable,  because  at  this  age  the  beasts 
of  sacrifice  have  attained  their  full  growth,  and  are  in  their  full  strength. 


270   THE  COVEXANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  124. 

(1)  Comp.  on  the  following,  Somnior,  Bill.  Ahhandl.  i.  pp.  183-360. 

(2)  Lev.  xi.  44  :  "  Ye  shall  not  defile  your  souls  ;"  ^i)}  here,  as  so  frequently, 
means  the  whole  person  (comp.  §  70). 

(3)  [Comp.  also  on  the  fundamental  thought  which  underlies  the  distinction 
between  clean  and  unclean  animals,  Schultz,  especially  p.  341  f.  Bestmann, 
Oesch.  d.  chr.  Sitte  I.  p.  296,  endeavors  to  connect  the  antithesis  of  clean  and  un- 
clean with  that  of  life  and  death  and  hence  of  the  good  and  the  evil.  He  thinks 
that  the  failure  to  separate  what  is  physically  and  what  is  morally  good  and  evil, 
which  characterized  all  the  ethical  views  of  the  ages  before  Christ,  appears  here. 
But  the  carrying  out  of  the  thought  that  what  is  treated  as  unclean  refers  to  death 
or  corruption,  is  attended  with  difficulty.  The  reference  of  the  antithesis  of  clean 
and  unclean  to  good  and  evil  cannot  in  all  cases  be  explained  by  that  between  life 
and  death  :  other  explanations  may  certainly  be  considered.] 

(4)  This,  in  the  case  of  cattle,  is  especially  expressed  by  the  addition  of  "^R^'j?  ; 
see  Knobel  on  Lev.  i.  5. 

§134. 

The  Ingredients  of  the  Vegetable  Offerings.     Salt  in  the  Offerings. 

The  ingredients  of  the  vegetable-offering,  and  particularly  of  the  Minhha,  or  food- 
offering,  were,  according  to  the  law  in  Lev.  ii.— 1.  Ears  roasted  by  fire,  or  grits, 
715^3  (according  to  the  Rabbinic  tradition,  the  fresh,  moist  ears),  ver.  14  ;  2.  Flour, 
T\lb,  ver.  1, — to  both  of  these  olive  oil  and  incense  were  added,  vers.  1,  15  f.  ;  3. 
Unleavened  loaves  or  cakes,  prepared  from  ^1*70  of  three  sorts,  ver.  4  ff.  Thus 
the  food-offering  was  made  of  that  which  sertied  as  the  common  nourishment  of  man, 
and  at  the  same  time  was  produced  by  human  toil.  Orchard  fruits,  such  as  al- 
monds and  pomegranates,  which  require  either  no  human  care  or  only  very  little, 
are  excluded  ;  and  with  this  reason  is  perhaps  combined  the  consideration  that 
offerings  were  to  be  no  dainties,  in  contrast  to  the  raisin-cakes  [not,  as  A.  V., 
flagons  of  wine]  in  the  service  of  idols  ;  comp.  IIos.  iii.  1.  With  reference  to 
every  Minhha,  it  is  rigidly  enjoined  (Lev.  ii.  11)  that  the  offering  may  not  be 
prepared  with  leaven,  but  must  (compare  ver.  4  f.)  be  offered  as  n:i{p.  This 
requisite  of  vegetable  offerings  seems  to  correspond  to  the  faultlessness  of  animal 

sacrifices.     Indeed,  two  kinds  of  fermentation  (]*^?n)  are  forbidden, first,  with 

leaven;  and  secondly,  with  honey  [probably  in  the  first  instance  the  honey  of 
bees,  but  the  honey  of  grapes,  dates,  and  other  fruits  was  also  no  doubt  forbidden]. 
The  former  certainly  was  used  in  the  loaves  of  the  first-fruits  (ii.  12,  xxiii.  17), 
which  represented  the  common  nourishment  of  the  people,  and  likewise  in  the 
cakes  of  bread  accompanying  thank-offerings  (vii.  13)  ;  but  none  of  these  were 
offered  on  the  altar— the  former  fell  to  the  share  of  the  priests  ;  the  latter  were 
used  at  the  sacrificial  feast.  The  reason  why  leaven,  although  it  was  not  unclean, 
had  a  profaning  effect  (it  was  forbidden  also  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans  in 
sacrificial  cakes,  and  among  the  latter  to  the  Flamen  Dlalis),  is  probably  that  the 
process  of  fermentation  brought  about  by  means  of  leaven  was  looked  on  as  akin 
to  corruption  (1).  The  effect  of  honey  is  similar  to  that  of  leaven,  since  it  easily 
changes  into  acid  (2).  Others  (3)  trace  the  prohibition  of  leaven  to  the  fact  that 
it  imparts  to  the  bread  a  certain  pleasantness  of  taste,  while  all  seasoning  which 
is  delightful  to  man  is  to  be  avoided  in  offerings ;  for  similar  reasons,  viz.  as  a 
symbol  of  the  delights  of  the  world,  honey  would  be  forbidden.     (Others,  again. 


§    134.]  SALT   IN"   THE    OFFEKINGS.  271 

have  thought  they  saw  a  symbol  of  arrogance  and  the  like  in  leaven,  because  it 
raises  the  bread.) 

Salt  was,  according  to  Lev.  ii.  13,  essential  to  every  food-offering  (according  to 
the  LXX  on  Lev.  xxiv.  7  for  the  shewbread  also).  It  does  not  follow  with 
certainty  from  the  passage  cited  that  salt  was  prescribed  also  as  an  accompaniment 
to  animal  offerings,  for  the  closing  words,  "  On  every  \'^')\>,  thou  shalt  offer  salt," 
may  from  the  context  be  limited  to  tlie  Minhha.  At  any  rate,  however,  later 
usage  made  use  of  salt  in  animal  sacrifices  (comp.  Mark  ix.  49,  -iraaa  dvaia  all  alia- 
O/'jaeTai)  at  the  burnt-offering  (Ezek.  xliii.  24  ;  Josephus,  Ant.  iii.  9.  1)  (4)  ; 
doubtless  also  at  thank-offerings,  which  were  combined  with  food-offerings.  On 
the  contrary,  the  use  of  salt  at  offerings  of  atonement  has  not  been  hitherto  dis- 
tinctly proved  (5). — The  point  of  view  under  which  the  use  of  salt  with  offerings 
is  to  be  regarded  is  not  mainly  that  it  makes  the  offering  palatable.  Salt,  in  virtue 
of  its  power  of  seasoning  and  preventing  putrefaction,  is  the  symlol  of  cleansing 
and  purification  as  well  as  of  ilurnhility.  The  latter  meaning  is  intended  when  it 
is  said  in  Lev.  ii.  13,  "  The  salt  of  the  covenant  of  thy  God,"  referring  to  the  in- 
destructible endurance  of  the  covenant  ;  and  therefore  a  covenant  regulation  of 
God,  which  is  for  ever  valid,  is  called  a  covenant  of  salt  (Num.  xviii.  19  ;  2 
Chron.  xiii.  5).  On  the  other  hand,  Christ's  words,  Mark  ix.  49,  "  Every  one  is 
salted  with  fire,  and  every  offering  is  salted  with  salt,"  refer  to  the  former  mean- 
ing, for  here  the  salt  of  the  offering  is  paralleled  with  the  purifying  fire  of  self- 
denial  and  trials  necessary  to  every  man  (6).  ["Every  believer  should  be  seasoned, 
made  acceptable  to  God,  with  the  fires  of  trial  and  evil,  and  every  sacrifice,  i.e. 
every  one  who  consecrates  himself,  shall  be  salted  with  the  salt  of  wisdom  from 
above."     Robinson,  N.  T.  Lex. — D.] 

(1)  Comp.  Plutarch,  Qumt.  Rom.  109. — Leaven  is  therefore  the  symbol  of  what 
is  impure,  of  what  corrupts  morally  (Luke  xii.  1  ;  1  Cor.  v.  6-8). 

(2)  Pliny  notes  this.  Hist.  nat.  xi.  15  (45).  In  Eabbinic  usage,  U'-^IH  has  on 
this  account  the  meaning  /'c^/'OTert^esc€?'<?,  and  tlien  corrumjoi. 

(3)  So  Baur,  in  the  Tiihinger  Zeitschr.  1832,  p.  68  f.  ;  and  Neumann,  in  the 
Deutsche  Zeitschr.  filr  christl.   Wissensc/iaft,  1853,  p.  334. 

(4)  Mishna  SelacMm  mentions  salt  only  at  the  burnt-offerings  of  birds,  vii.  5, 
but  remarks,  §  6,  that  the  offering  still  held  good  even  if  the  rubbing  with  salt 
was  omitted. 

(5)  To  the  supplies  in  kind,  which  in  later  times  fell  to  the  share  of  the  temple, 
belonged  especially  salt  (Ezra  vi.  9,  vii.  22),  which,  as  is  clear  from  Josephus, 
Ant.  xii.  3.  3,  was  used  in  large  quantities,  and,  among  other  purposes,  to  salt 
the  skins  of  the  beasts  sacrificed.  See  Mishna  Middoth,  v.  2,  in  which  passage  a 
special  chamber  for  salt  is  mentioned,  which  was  in  the  front  court  of  the  temple. 

(6)  Nothing  but  icine  was  used  fnr  the  drinlc-ofcriiigwVxch  went  v,'ith  the  food- 
offering.  (The  libation  of  water  (1  Sam.  vii.  6)  is  probably  to  be  niterpretcd  as 
a  ceremony  of  purification  ;  see  O.  v.  Gr-rlach  on  this  passage,  and  another  view 
in  the  commentary  of  Thenius.  On  the  libation  of  water  at  tlie  feast  of  tabernacles, 
see  §  156.)  With  reference  to  the  wine,  the  law  fixes  nothing  more  than  the 
quantity  to  be  used.  Mishna  Menachoth,  viii.  6,  7,  on  the  contrary,  contains  exact 
rules  about  the  kinds  to  be  chosen,  about  what  is  to  be  observed  with  regfird  to 
the  cultivation  of  the  vineyard  concerned,  and  about  the  age  and  preservation  of 
the  wine. 


272   THE  COYEiSrAXT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  125. 

§  125. 

The  Principle  on  which  the  Material  of  Offerings  was  fixed. 

What  is  now  the  principle  which  lies  at  the  root  of  these  rales  as  to  the  material 
of  offerings  ?     The  following  are  the  principal  views  : — 

1.  A  first  view  holds  that  these  rules  were  fixed  with  an  eye  to  the  people's 
property.  Thus  Biihr  {SymboUh,  1st  ed.  ii.  p.  317)  :  "The  entire  circle  of  all  that 
was  offered  in  Israel  was  to  be  the  entire  circle  of  that  which  is  Israel's  own  — 
Israel's  means  of  support."  In  fact  (as  was  shown  in  §  120),  if  self-denial  is  an 
essential  feature  in  offerings,  a  real  offering  can  be  presented  only  from  one's  own 
property  ;  to  offer  another's  property,  as  Bahr  rightly  notes,  is  a  contraclictio  in 
adjecto  (as  in  the  case  of  St.  Crispin).  It  is  no  argument  against  this  that,  for 
example,  the  people,  in  their  needy  circumstances  after  the  exile,  brought 
offerings  from  the  largess  which  the  Persian  king  bestowed  on  them  (Ezra  vi.  9, 
comp.  vii.  17,  22,  etc.).  From  the  ordinances  of  Nehemiah  (Neh.  x.  33  ff.)  it  is 
nevertheless  clear  that  the  people  were  well  aware  that  it  was  their  duty  them- 
selves to  provide  what  the  ritual  demanded.  Still,  the  notion  of  the  peo- 
ple's property  is  far  too  extensive  to  explain  the  material  of  offerings  ;  and  even 
Biihr  limits  the  point  of  view  of  property  by  calling  attention  to  the  reference 
of  the  two  main  constituents  of  the  offerings  to  the  two  material  bases  of  the 
Hebrew  state, — cattle-breeding  and  agriculture, — a  reference,  the  meaning  of 
which  will  appear  below. 

2.  According  to  a  second  view,  the  determining  principle  is  that  of  nourish- 
ment. Offerings  are  frequently  called  the  hread  of  God  ;  and  this  name  is  applied 
to  offerings  in  general  (Lev.  xxi.  C,  8,  17  ;  Num.  xxviii.  2,  24  ;  comp.  Ezek.  xliv. 
7  ;  Mai.  i.  7),  to  the  burnt-offering  and  thank-offering  together  (Lev.  xxii.  25),  to 
the  thank-offering  alone  (Lev.  iii.  11,  IC),  but  the  expression  is  never  used  of 
sin-offerings  in  particular.  According  to  the  Mosaic  idea  of  God,  it  is  not 
possible  to  understand  this  phrase  of  food  offered  for  God's  nourishment  (comp. 
§  112,  with  note  2),  but  only  of  a  giving  to  God  of  the  people's  nourishment  (1). 
Even  this  point  of  view,  however,  taken  generally,  goes  too  far,  because  not  all  the 
clean  animals  which  are  allowed  for  food,  and  not  nearly  all  that  is  eaten  of  the 
vegetable  kingdom,  can  be  made  use  of  as  material  for  offering.  The  material 
of  offerings  is,  as  already  remarked,  taken  o)dy  from  those  clean  animals  which 
have  been  got  by  rearing  and  cultivation^  and  which  form  the  ordinary  stock  of 
cattle,  and  from  such  produce  of  manual  labor  in  field  and  vineyard  as  serves  for 
the  common  nourishment  of  man.  From  this  it  is  clear  that  the  offerings  are 
chosen  with  regard  to  the  ordinary  nourishment  earned  by  the  people  in  their 
calling  (2).  The  people  bring  an  offering  to  God  of  the  food  which  they  have 
l^roduced  in  the  vocation  ordained  for  them  by  God  ;  and  thus  they  sanctify  their 
calling  (8),  and  bring  a  testimony  of  the  blessing  which  God  has  given  on  the 
labor  of  their  hands,  Deut.  xvi.  17. 

3.  On  this  conception,  now,  in  the  third  place,  that  point  of  view  gets  its  due 
which  Kurtz  has  asserted  with  good  reason,  and  which  only  must  not,  as  Kurtz 
formerly  did  {Das  mosaische  Opfer,  1842,  p.  60\  be  taken  as  the  actual  principle 
pf  choice,  viz,  the  psychico-biotic  relation  in  which  the  offerer  stands  to  the  gift 


§   125.]  MATEKIAL  OF  OPPERIN-QS.  273 

presented.  The  feature  of  self-denial  essential  to  a  real  offering  is  particularly 
prominent  in  those  gifts  which  are  taken  from  what  is  produced  by  man's  regular 
daily  toil,  and  at  the  same  time  from  the  led  and  most  precious  yart  of  such  prod- 
uce ;  and  it  is  quite  specially  an  act  of  self-denial  to  give  the  first-fruits  of  the 
herd  and  of  the  field,  to  which  the  heart  is  wont  to  cling  particularly.  But  what 
Philo  points  out  {de  vict.  §  1)  has  also  a  place  in  these  considerations,  viz.  that 
tliose  animals  are  dedicated  as  sacrifices  which  are  the  most  tame,  the  best  accus- 
tomed to  man's  hand,  or,  if  you  will,  the  most  innocent — which  surrender  them- 
selves most  patiently  to  slaughter.  Consider  the  passage  concerning  the  patient 
sacrificial  lamb  in  Isa.  liii.  7. 

After  the  foregoing  remarks,  the  provisions  respecting  the  material  of  offerings, 
ill  reference  to  what  they  include  and  exclude,  require  no  further  explanation. 
There  is  but  one  more  question,  viz. :  What  is  the  meaning  to  be  attached  to  the  oil 
and  the  incense  which  accompany  the  food-offering?  As  to  the  latter,  there  is  no 
doubt  that,  as  the  offering  of  incense  is  not  merely  to  serve  to  produce  a  sweet 
odor,  but  is  the  symbol  of  prayer  ascending  to  God,  and  well-pleasing  in  His 
sight  (comp.  Ps.  cxli.  2)  (4),  so  too  the  incense  along  with  the  Minhha  is  to  serve 
to  imprint  more  definitely  on  the  offering  the  character  of  a  vehicle  of  iwayer.  It 
is  disputed,  however,  whether  the  oil,  like  the  incense  and  the  salt,  is  simply  a 
supplement  to  the  Minhha  (thus  Kurtz  in  particular), — namely,  an  unction  indicat- 
ing (because  oil  in  the  Old  Testament  appears  as  the  symbol  of  the  communica- 
tion of  the  Spirit)  that  only  such  labor  is  well- pleasing  to  God  as  is  consecrated 
by  the  Divine  Spirit,  that  only  those  gifts  should  be  brought  to  Him  which  are 
produced  by  such  toil, — or  whether  (so  Biihr)  the  oil  in  the  offering  is  co-ordinate 
with  the  grain  and  the  wine,  and  thus  is  not  a  mere  accompaniment,  but  an  inde- 
pendent  constituent  of  the  gift — as  indeed  oil  is  frequently  specified  in  the  Old 
Testament,  along  with  corn  and  wine,  among  the  chief  productions  of  Palestine 
(5).  The  co-ordination  of  the  oil  and  the  incense  in  Lev.  ii.  1,  15,  as  well  as  the 
circumstance  th'at  the  oil,  with  the  incense,  was  omitted  in  the  food-offering  for 
sin  and  jealousy  (Lev.  v.  11  and  Num.  y.  15),  seem  to  favor  Kurtz's  view.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  law  in  Num.  xv.,  where  the  provisions  as  to  the  quantity  of 
oil  to  be  used  are  quite  co-ordinate  with  the  quantities  of  wine  in  the  drink-offer- 
ing, favors  the  second  view.  The  omission  of  the  oil,  which  makes  food  savory, 
in  the  offerings  of  sin  and  jealousy  is  also  explicable  on  the  second  view  :  these 
offerings  were  to  be  of  a  gloomy  character,  and  therefore  in  them  the  libation  of 
wine  was  also  omitted  ;  and  in  the  offering  of  jealousy  a  less  valuable  kind  of 
flour  was  used  (6). 

(1)  [Several  modern  writers,  e.  g.  Dillmann  (in  his  Commentary  p.  376),  H.  Schultz 
(p.  417),  F.  W.  Schultz  (in  Zockler's  Handlucli,  i.  p.  252)  explain  the  phrase  "bread 
of  God"  by  the  low  view  concerning  God  in  the  earlier  time,  according  to  which 
food  was  offered  to  God  for  him  to  partake  of,  a  view  which  gave  way  at  a  later 
period  to  more  spiritual  conceptions.  Kohler  (i.  p.  394)  finds  in  the  expression 
the  thought  that  the  offering  is  enjoyed  by  Jehovah  and  refreshing  to  Him,  as 
showing  the  disposition  of  the  offerer  as  expressed  by  his  offering ;  and  F.  W. 
Schultz  holds  that  this  meaning  was  subsequently  attached  to  the  words.]  _ 

(2)  Because  Israel  is  not  to  be  a  people  of  hunters,  no  offering  of  game  is  com- 
manded. 

(3)  Compare  Keil,  Hand}).  derliU:  Arcliaologie.  i.  p.  108  ff. 


374   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  12G. 

(4)  Ps.  cxli.  2  :  "Let  my  prayer  come  before  Thee  as  incense  ;  and  the  lifting 
up  of  my  hands  as  the  evening  Minhha." 

(5)  See  Kurtz,  Bus  mos.  Opfer,  p.  101,  and  Sacrificial  Worship  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, p.  287  f.  ;  Bahr,  I.e.  pp.  302,  31G.  .      r    ■,     ^     ^ 

(6)  On  the  contrary,  tlie  parallel  drawn  by  Bahr  between  the  oil  of  the  food- 
offering  and  the  fat  of  animal  sacrifices  has  been  rejected  by  Kurtz  with  good 
reason  {Das  mos.  Opfer^  p.  94). 


2.    THE    RITUAL    OK    SACRIFICE. 

§  126. 

The  Ritual  of  Animal  Sacrifce :  Presentation  at  the  Altar;  Laying  on  of  Hands; 

Slaughter. 

The  parts  that  make  up  the  action  of  offering,  and  first  of  animal  sacrifice,  are 
in  general — 1.  The  presentation  of  the  animal  to  be  sacrificed  before  the  altar  ;  2. 
The  laying  on  of  hands  ;  3.  Killing  ;  4.  Sprinkling  of  the  blood  ;  5.  Burning  on  the 
altar  (1). 

1.  The  consecration  of  the  offerer,  accomplished  by  avoiding  all  levitical  defile- 
ment, and  by  washing,  preceded  the  sacrificial  festival  (see  1  Sam,  xvi.  5,  comp. 
Philo,  de  vict.  off.  §  1).  On  this  the  offerer  had  in  person  to  bring  the  animal 
selected  to  the  entrance  of  the  tabernacle.  Lev.  i.  3,  iv.  4,  where  stood  the  altar  of 
burnt  sacrifice  (Ex.  xl.  6).  The  term  for  this  is,  in  Lev.  iv.  4  and  other  passages, 
i<'3n,  distinguished  from  ^"^P'?,  which  designates  the  proper  presentation  of  offer- 
ings on  the  altar,  i.  3  ;  comp.  especially  xvii.  4  f.,  9  (2). 

2.  Then  the  offerer  (if  there  was  more  than  one,  comp.  e.g.  Ex.  xxix.  10,  one 
after  the  other)  laid,  or  more  correctly  pressed  firmly,  his  hand  on  the  head  of 
the  sacrificial  animal  (Lev.  i.  4,  iii.  2,  i\'.  4,  etc.)  (3).  The  term  n;  1\T?D  here 
used  properly  means  to  prop  or  lean  the  hand  ;  according  to  the  Rabbins,  the 
hands  were  to  be  laid  on  with  the  whole  bodily  strength  (ni)  733,  Maimonides). 
Doubtless  the  utterance  of  some  declaration  as  to  the  destination  of  the  offering 
presented  (petition,  confession,  thanks,  etc.)  was  connected  with  the  laying  on  of 
hands,  or  SemiMia  {^) .  The  signification  of  the  laying  on  of  hands  is  not  merely 
(as  has  often  been  said,  see  Knobel  on  Lev.  i.  4)  to  express  in  general  that  thereby 
the  beast  to  be  sacrificed  is  removed  from  the  power  and  possession  of  him  who 
makes  the  offering,  and  devoted  to  God  ;  but  (comp.  Hofmann  in  his  Schriftieweis, 
ii.  p.  24G)  the  laying  on  of  hands,  occurring  also  at  the  dedication  of  the  Levites, 
Num.  viii.  10  (comp.  §  94),  is,  as  is  expressed  by  letting  the  hand  down  on  the 
head,  the  dedication  of  that  which  the  acting  person  awards  to  the  other  in  vir- 
tue of  the  fulness  of  power  that  he  possesses  over  it.  The  offerer,  by  the  laying  on 
of  his  hands,  appioints  the  animal  to  be  for  him  a  medium  and  vehicle  of  atone- 
ment, thanks,  or  supplication,  according  to  the  designation  of  the  offering 
with  which  at  the  time  he  now  wishes  to  appear  before  God.  The  laying  on  of 
hands  must  not  be  limited  to  the  imputation  of  sin  (as  is  frequently  done)  (5). 

3.  The  slaughtering  of  the  beast  of  sacrifice  (t^PK/,  the  term  "  to  kill,"  is  never 
used)  follows  immediately  on  the  laying  on  of  hands,  and,  as  the  law  presup- 
poses throughout,  is  executed  at  private  offerings  ly  the  offerer  himself.     True,  it 


§    12G.]  THE    RITUAL   OF    AKIMAL   SACRIFICE.  275 

lay  in  the  nature  of  the  case  that  at  this  act  the  assistance  of  another  had  to 
be  called  iu  ;  but  the  slaughtering  of  private  offerings  was  in  no  case  a  specific 
business  of  the  priests,  as  has  often  been  assumed  (so  by  Philo,  de  vict.  §  5). 
(The  reason  of  the  exception  in  offerings  of  doves  will  be  mentioned  below).  But 
at  those  sacrifices  which  formed  the  standing  service  at  the  offerings  for  the  cleans- 
ing of  lepers  (Lev.  xiv.  13,  35),  as  well  as  at  the  sacrifices  offered  for  the  whole 
nation  (comp.  2  Chron.  xxix.  23,  24),  the  slaughtering  was  the  business  of  the 
priests,  who  were  probably  assisted  by  the  Levites  (comp.  ver.  34)  (6). 

For  burnt  sacrifices,  sin-offerings,  and  trespass-offerings,  the  place  of  slaughter- 
ing was  on  the  north  side  of  the  altar  (Lev.  1.  11,  iv.  24,  39,  33,  vi.  18,  xiv.  13). 
A  thank-offering  might,  it  appears,  be  slaughtered  at  other  places  in  the  court. 
Ewald  {Antiquities,  p.  44)  would  see  in  the  choice  of  the  north  side  a  remnant  of 
the  ancient  belief  that  the  Divinity  dwelt  either  in  the  east  or  the  north,  and  came 
from  thence  ;  but  that  the  slaughtering  of  the  sacrifice  has  also  the  meaning  of  a 
presentation  before  God  has  yet  to  be  proved.  "We  might  rather  say,  with  Tholuck 
(DasAlte  Testament  im  Netien,  ed.  3,  p.  91),  that  the  north  side  is  chosen  for  slaugh- 
tering the  offering  because  it  is  dark,  and  therefore  cheerless.  The  law  makes  no 
regulations  for  the  manner  of  slaughtering  ;  tradition,  however,  is  all  the  more 
explicit  on  this  account,  and  makes  it  aim  mainly  at  the  speediest  and  most 
complete  way  of  obtaining  the  blood.  On  this  principle,  too  (as  Bahr,  I.e.  p.  343, 
has  rightly  discerned),  we  are  to  explain  the  manner  of  procedure  prescribed  for 
the  offering  of  pigeons,  Lev.  i.  15 — namely,  that  the  priest  himself  must  wring  off 
the  head  of  the  bird,  in  order  to  be  able  to  press  out  the  blood  on  the  spot. — In 
the  Mosaic  ritual,  the  slaughtering  of  the  offering  has  apjoarently  no  independent 
significance  ;  it  only  serves  as  a  means  of  obtaining  the  blood.  It  is  at  least  not 
indicated  in  the  law  of  offering  that  what  the  offerer  deserved  as  a  sinner  is  exe- 
cuted on  the  animal  slaughtered,  and  that  thus  the  death  of  the  sacrifice  satisfies 
the  divine  punitive  justice.  Though  much  that  is  beautiful  can  be  said  on  the 
connection  of  the  idea  of  a  pana  vicaria  with  the  offering  (the  later  Jewish  the- 
ology lays  great  emphasis  on  this  idea),  nothing  can  be  adduced  in  favor  of  it  from 
the  sacrificial  laws.  Certainly  the  act  of  slaughter,  if  it  was  to  represent  the  pun- 
ishment of  death  deserved  by  the  offerer — if  the  shedding  of  the  blood  under  the 
sacrificial  knife  was  an  act  of  real  expiation,  must  have  been  more  prominently 
set  forth,  and  the  act  of  slaughter  must  unquestionably  have  been  assigned  not 
to  the  offerer  of  the  sacrifice,  but  to  the  priest,  as  the  representative  of  the  punish- 
ing God.  Or  shall  God  appear  as  a  judge,  who  commands  the  transgressor  to 
execute  himself  with  the  sword  ?  (7).  Besides,  if  the  slaughter  was  really  an  act  of 
atonement,  it  would  probably  have  taken  place  on  the  altar  itself,  and  not  by  the 
side  of  it.  The  act  of  atonement  at  the  offering,  with  which  the  specific  priestly 
functions  begin,  commences  not  with  the  shedding  of  blood,  but  with  the  use  of 
the  shed  blood. 

(1)  The  ceremonies  which  are  peculiar  to  particular  kinds  of  offerings  are  most 
suitably  spoken  of  in  the  discussion  of  these. 

(3)  At  this  presentation,  doubtless,  the  ])riest  examined  whether  the  condition 
of  the  animal  corresponded  to  the  sacrificial  regulations.  [Against  the  view  that 
the  leading  up  of  the  animal  was  the  first  act  of  the  sacrificial  service,  Kohler  (i. 
p.  390)  urges  the  fact  that  the  fitness  of  the  animal  was  not  decided  upon  until 


276   THE  COVENAKT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AKD  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  127. 

after  this  presentation.     Tie  regards  the  presentation  as  only  preparatory,  and 
not  a  coastitnent  part  of  the  act  of  sacrifice,  j 

(3)  According  to  Mishna  Menachoth  ix.  8,  both  hands,  for  which  the  Rabbins 
refer  to  Lev.  xvi.  21. 

(4)  The  formuhe  handed  down  by  the  Rabbins  (comp.  Outram,  De  sacrificiis,  p. 
156  ff.)  are  nevertheless,  without  doubt,  of  a  later  origin.  Jewish  tradition  says 
(see  Outram,  p.  152)  that  the  laying  on  of  hands  took  place  at  all  private  offer- 
ings, with  the  exception  of  the  first-fruits,  the  tithes,  and  the  paschal  lamb,  but 
it  is  declared  to  be  unnecessary  at  the  sacrifice  of  birds.  When  the  law  in  Lev. 
vii.  omits  to  mention  the  laying  on  of  hands  at  trespass-offerings,  this  is  probably 
only  because  the  description  is  curtailed,  ver.  7  referring  back  to  the  sin-offering. 
Of  the  sacrifices  offered  for  the  congregation,  the  laying  on  of  hands  is  men- 
tioned only  at  the  sin-offering,  iv.  15,  according  to  which  it  was  to  be  performed 
by  the  elders  ;  and  in  xvi.  21,  with  which  comp.  2  Chron.  xxix.  23.  Tradition 
(comp.  Menachoth  ix.  7)  says  that  the  practice  was  actually  limited  to  these  cases. 
The  provision  of  the  law,  according  to  which  the  person  who  offered,  and  not  the 
priest,  except  when  the  offerer  was  the  priest,  hact  to  undertake  the  act  of  laying 
on  of  hands,  is,  with  right,  emphatically  urged  by  Jewish  tradition.  No  one 
could  cause  his  servant,  or  his  wife,  or  any  one  else,  to  take  his  place  here  ;  only, 
when  a  dead  person  had  vowed  to  give  an  offering,  the  heir  was  allowed  to  be 
his  substitute  (Outram,  I.e.  p.  143).  "Women,  children,  blind,  deaf,  and  insane 
persons  are  designated  in  Menachoth  ix.  8  as  incapacitated  for  performing  this 
function. — These  traditional  provisions  show  that  it  was  a  point  in  this  laying 
on  of  the  hand  that  the  act  be  performed  with  full  consciousness  of  its  meaning. 

(5)  When  Ewald,  Antiquities  of  the  People  of  Israel,  p.  44,  represents  the  laying 
on  of  hands,  this  dedicatory  sign  "  of  highest  power  and  exertion,"  at  the  of- 
fering, as  characterizing  the  sacred  moment  when  the  offerer,  "on  the  point  of 
beginning  the  sacred  act,  laid  all  the  feelings  which  must  now  rush  on  him  in 
full  fervor  on  the  head  of  the  creature,  the  blood  of  which  was  presently  to  flow 
for  him,  and  as  it  were  to  appear  before  God  for  him,"  he  has  certainly  caught 
the  right  meaning  of  the  ancient  ceremony. 

(6)  On  this  point  see  especially  Lund,  Judische  Heiligtluimer,  p.  579  f. 

(7)  Comp.  Keil's  pertinent  remarks,  Luth.  Zeitschr.  1857,  p.  57.  [That  the 
slaughtering  has  not  the  meaning  of  punishment  is  now  almost  universally  ad- 
mitted. Of  subordinate  importance  is  the  distinction  made  e.g.  by  Riehm  {Stud. 
11.  Krit.  1877,  p.  64),  that  the  slaughtering  was  not  only  the  means  of  obtaining 
the  blood,  but  that  the  offerer  thereby  entirely  renounced  all  right  of  property  in 
the  animal,  and  that  it  could  never  more  pass  into  the  possession  of  man,  but 
was  only  to  be  used  as  an  offering  to  Jehovah.     Comp.  also  Kohler,  i.  p.  394.] 


§  137. 

Continuation  :    The  Use  made  of  the  Shed  Blood. 

4.  The  streaming  blood  of  the  slaughtered  animal  was  immediately  caught  by 
a  priest  (1)  in  a  basin,  and — see  Sheringham  on  Mishna  Joma,  iv.  3 — was  stirred 
incessantly  to  prevent  it  from  clotting  (2).  The  manipulation  of  the  blood  which 
followed  differed  according  to  the  various  kinds  of  offerings,  that  is,  according 
to  the  degree  in  which  the  element  of  atonement  was  connected  with  the  sacrifice. 
The  lowest  grade,  in  the  case  of  burnt-offerings,  trespass-offerings,  and  thank-of- 
ferings (Lev.  i.  5,  vii.  2,  iii.  13,  etc.),  consisted  in  sprinkling,  or  rather  swinging, 
the  blood  round  the  altar  (^'^p  n5|Dn-7J')  (while,  at  least  according  to  Philo,  de 
met.  §  5,  the  priest  walked  round  it).  The  term  pIT,  used  for  this  operation,  is 
different  from  njn  ;  the  latter  was  done  with  the  finger  ;  the  np"lT,  on  the  con- 


§    127.]  THE    USE    MADE    OF   THE    SHED    BLOOD.  277 

trary,  was  done  directly  out  of  tlie  basin.  The  law  seems  to  demand  that  at  the 
np'")T  the  whole  supply  of  blood  be  used  (3). — On  the  contrary,  at  the  sin-ollerino-s 
higher  grades  of  manipulation  of  the  blood  took  place,  consisting  in  bringing 
the  blood  to  specially  sanctified  places,  according  to  the  dignity  of  the  sin-offer- 
ing. In  i\\Q  first  [or  lower]  grade  of  sin-offering,  part  of  the  blood  was  put  on 
the  horns  of  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  (jHJ,  Lev.  iv.  30,  34-)  ;  in  the  second,  the 
blood  was  brought  into  the  holy  place,  and  part  of  it  was  sprinkled  or  spurted 
(njn,  iv.  6,  17)  seven  times  toward  the  inner  curtain,  and  put  on  the  horns  of  the 
altar  of  incense.  In  both  cases  the  remaining  quantity  of  blood  was  to  be  poured 
out  C^?^)  at  the  foot  of  the  altar  of  burnt-offerings.  In  the  higliest  grade  of  sin- 
offering,  the  blood  was  brought  into  the  holy  of  holies,  and  the  kapporeth 
[mercy-seat]  was  sprinkled  with  it. — The  meaning  of  this  use  of  the  blood  is 
given  in  Lev.  xvii.  11,  where  the  prohibition  to  use  blood  is  based  on  the  follow- 
ing declaration  : — "  For  the  soul  of  the  flesh  is  in  the  blood,  and  I  have  given  it 
to  you  on  the  altar  to  atone  for  (properly  to  cover)  your  souls  (DD'riil'SJ";^'  "1337)  ; 
for  the  blood  expiates  tliroitgh  the  soul  (ii'3^5)" — that  is,  by  means  of,  in  virtue 
of  the  fact  that  the  soul  is  in  it  (4).  The  same  sense  is  given  if  we  take  the  other 
possible  view  of  the  construction,  and  assuming  a  use  of  Beth  essentia,  interpret, 
"in  the  quality  of  the  soul;"  but  in  that  case  we  must  read  the  word  ti'i?^^ 
(without  the  article).  On  the  contrary,  the  explanation  "  the  blood  atones  for 
the  soul,"  or  "is  an  atonement  for  the  soul"  (LXX  :  arn  ^I'v^f/g  e^iXdasTai  ;  so 
A.  V.  and  Luther),  is  to  be  rejected  ;  for,  not  to  speak  of  the  tautology  thus 
introduced  into  the  passage,  the  thing  to  be  atoned  for,  or  more  literally  to  be 
covered,  is  always  connected  with  ^33  by  the  prepositions  /it  or  ni'3,  or  rarely  is 
made  the  object  of  the  verb  (5).  This  connection  of  the  soul  and  the  blood  is  in 
ver.  14  expressed  thus  :  "  The  soul  of  all  flesh  is  li^SJ^  io"!,"  that  is,  "  its  blood 
in  its  soul," — its  blood  in  as  far  as  it  has  the  property  of  the  'dp^,  its  animated 
blood.  (liJ'iJJS  is  to  be  taken  as  in  Gen.  ix.  4.)  Knobel  is  probably  right  when  he 
says  :  "The  addition  of  it^i)J3  serves  to  define  D'^  more  distinctly,  in  order  that 
we  may  not  hold  the  matter  of  the  blood  in  itself  to  be  the  life,  e.g.  not 
clotted  and  dried  blood,  from  which  the  ^^^.  has  disappeared."  For  the  manip- 
ulation of  the  blood  must  not  be  understood  as  the  employment  of  what  once  was 
the  life  of  the  animal  to  sprinkle  the  holy  places, — a  view  by  which  an  altogether 
foreign  idea  would  be  introduced  into  the  passage.  As  in  the  Old  Testament 
living  water  and  living  flesh  (in  contrast  to  boiled,  1  Sam.  ii.  15)  are  spoken  of, 
so,  and  even  more  correctly,  may  fresh,  reeking  blood,  still  in  the  act  of  flowing, 
be  regarded  as  blood  which  still  has  life  in  itself  and  is  still  linked  with  the  soul. 
The  passage  means,  that  in  the  still  fresh  blood  of  the  sacrifice  which  is  put  on 
the  altar,  the  soul  of  the  animal  is  presented  for  the  soul  of  man,  to  atone  for, 
more  exactly  to  cover,  the  latter.  The  terms  "'^^  [to  cover],  with  the  substantives 
*153,  Q'"???,  used  to  express  the  idea  of  atonement,  denote  expiation  as  a  covering  ; 
the  guilt  is  to  be  covered — withdrawn,  so  to  speak — from  the  gaze  of  Him  who 
is  reconciled  by  the  atonement,  so  that  the  guilty  one.  can  now  approach  Him 
without  danger.  In  explanation  of  this,  comp.  especially  such  passages  as  Ex. 
XXX.  12  (Num.  viii.  19),  but  in  particular  (Num.  xvii.  11  [A.  V.  xvi.  46])  (6),  etc. 
On  the  same  view  rests  the  converse  expression — to  cover  by  a  gift  the  face  of 


278   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISllAEL  AND  THE  THEOCKACY.     [§  127. 

the  adversary  who  is  to  be  reconciled,  Gen.  xxxii.  21  ('3  \J?  "Ip-?)  ;  comji.,  iu  xx. 
16,  the  corresponding  expression  D'^'i'  niD3  (see  other  cognate  terms  adduced  by 
Knobel  on  this  passage).  Thus,  too,  a  lyrihe  given  to  a  judge  by  an  accused  person 
is  called  "13^,  a  covering,  because  (1  Sam.  xii.  3)  the  eyes  of  the  judge  iccre  therehy 
veiled.  To  the  sinful  people  God  appears  as  the  covering  One,  Deut.  xxi.  8  ;  Jer. 
xviii.  23;  Mic.  vii.  19.  In  the  language  of  sacrifice,  thejwie«i,  as  the  mediator 
between  God  and  tlie  people,  is  in  general  designated  as  he  who  covers  or  ex- 
piates, Lev.  V.  20  0^  nSpJ]  nirr  '^a'?  jn^n  vS;;  1531),  x.  17,  xv.  15  and  30.    That 

by  which  a  trespass  is  covered  can  only  be  sometliing  by  which  he  against  whom 
man  has  offended  is  satisfied.  Thus  "133  passes  over  into  the  meaning  of  Avrpov, 
the  payment  which  buys  a  debtor  free  ;  thus  Ex.  xxi.  30  (where  lli'SJ  |'"13  corre- 
sponds to  it)  ;  Num.  xxxv.  31  ;  comp.  also  Prov.  vi.  35,  xiii.  8.  The  Wv-rpov  paid 
must  of  course  stand  in  a  suitable  proportion  to  the  debt  to  be  discharged  ;  still 
the  notion  of  equivalency  does  not  necessarily  lie  in  "^33.  The  gift  by  which  a 
man  covers  himself  must  be  such  as  to  satisfy  the  person  to  whom  the  debt  is 
due,  '1?3  is  the  opposite  of  punishment,  but  in  some  cases  only  in  a  relative  sense. 
Lighter  punishment  may  be  a  covering  against  heavier,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
money-fine,  Ex.  xxi.  30  ;  to  this  Isa.  xxvii.  9  also  belongs,  where  the  lighter  pun- 
ishment, which  has  a  purifying  effect,  serves  to  cover  or  atone,  in  contrast  with 
the  heavy  punishment  of  extermination  (7)  ;  comp.  also  the  "133  m  Job  xxxiii.  24. 
Further,  the  punishment  which  falls  on  one  man  may  benefit  another  as  his  l?^^ 
and  that  in  various  ways.  The  punishment  of  death  executed  on  a  manslayer 
furnishes  a  covering  for  the  land  which  has  been  desecrated  by  bloodshed,  Num. 
xxxv.  33  ;  and  the  exemplary  punishment  executed  on  a  guilty  person  covers  the 
people  who  are  involved  in  connection  with  this  crime  and  suffer  thereby,  xxv.  13 
(comp.  Josh.  vii.  for  a  case  in  point).  In  a  manner,  Prov.  xxi.  18  also  belongs  to 
this:  "  The  wicked  shall  be  a  covering  ("^3^)  for  the  righteous,  and  the  trans- 
gressor comes  in  the  place  of  the  upright ;"  by  the  divine  judgment  falling  on 
the  wicked  man,  that  is  (comp.  xi.  8),  by  God's  judgment  being  spent  on  the 
wicked  man,  the  righteous  man  is  freed  and  saved.  But  even  the  thought  that 
perhaps  a  righteous  man  may  purchase  forgiveness  for  the  people  by  taking  their 
punishment  is  not  unknown  to  the  Pentateuch  ;  see  Ex.  xxxii.  32,  and  what  has 
already  (§  29,  with  note  3)  been  said  about  this  passage  ;  only  that  Jehovah  (ver. 
33)  does  not  accept  this  atonement  for  which  Moses  offers  himself. 

Now  in  what  sense  is  the  soul  of  the  animal  presented  in  the  blood  to  serve  in 
the  sacrifice  as  a  covering  for  the  soul  of  man  ?  Generally  speaking,  by  man's 
placing  the  soul  of  the  pure,  innocent  sacrificial  animal  between  himself  and  God,  be- 
cause he  is  unable  to  approach  God  immediately  on  account  of  his  sinfulness  and 
impurity  ;  as  Jacob,  wishing  to  reconcile  his  greatly  injured  brother  Esau,  sends 
the  1?3  before  him.  More  particularly,  liowever,  the  question  arises.  Is  the  way 
in  which  the  beast  sacrificed  comes  in  for  the  guilty  person  to  be  regarded  as  vi- 
carious punishment  ? — ^in  other  words,  Can  the  soul  of  the  animal  become  a  substi- 
tute for  the  soul  of  sinful  man,  because  it  has  first  by  death  paid  the  penalty  which 
the  latter  should  have  borne,  so  that  here  the  jus  talionis,  "  soul  for  soul,"  Ex. 
xxi.  33,  comes  into  play  ?— In  the  ritual  law  of  the  Old  Testament  there  is,  apart 
from   sacrifice,   a  ceremony  in  which  certainly  the  idea  of  the  p««cf  vicaria  is 


§    127.]  THE    USE    MADE    OF   THE    SHED    BLOOD.  27!) 

expressed— uumely,  the  ccremonj-  prescribed  in  Deut.  xxi.  1-0,  in  the  case 
of  a  manslayer  remaining  unknown.  Evidently  the  punishment  of  death  in- 
curred by  the  manslayer  is  executed  symbolically  on  the  heifer,  the  neck  of 
which  is  broken  in  a  brook  [A.  V.  rough  valley]  {8).  With  reference  to  sacrifice,  the 
theory  of  vicarious  punishment  certainly  is  not  confuted  by  the  common  objection, 
that  the  soul  of  the  sacrificial  animal,  laden  with  the  curse  of  the  sinner,  might 
not  be  laid  upon  the  altar,  upon  which  nothing  might  come  but  what  was  clean 
and  well-pleasing  to  God.  For  to  this  objection  we  may  reply,  with  Kurtz,  that 
after  the  guilt  of  sin  is  wiped  away  by  death,  the  wages  of  sin,  a  restitutio  in  in- 
tegrum, ensues,  in  virtue  of  which  the  blood,  wdiich  has  passed  through  death,  is 
to  be  viewed  as  pure  and  free  from  guilt  (9).  But  if,  according  to  this  view,  the 
offering  of  the  blood  on  the  altar  only  signifies  the  divine  acceptance  of  the  atone- 
ment completed  in  the  death  of  the  sacrifice,  it  remains  unexplained  why,  in  the 
ritual  of  sacrifice,  it  is  not  the  act  of  slaughter  by  which  the  guilt  is  carried  away, 
but  the  act  of  i^resenting  the  Mood  on  the  altar  that  is  designated  as  the  act  of  atonement 
(comp.  the  remarks  in  §  126).  The  law,  in  attaching  no  special  meaning  to  the 
slaughtering,  certainly  leaves  room  for  speculations,  like  those  of  Bahr  {I.e.  p.  211) 
and  others,  that  every  gift  to  God  presupposes  the  offering  up  of  the  natural  life, 
or  for  the  common  view,  which  recommends  itself  by  its  easyintelligibilitj',  that 
a  punishment  is  symbolically  executed  in  the  slaughtering  (10).  But  the  law  no- 
where intimates  that  in  sacrifice,  as  in  the  Hherem  [devotion  to  destruction],  a 
judicial  punishment  is  inflicted.  The  altar  is  nowhere  presented  as  a  jilace  of  ex- 
ecution. He  who  has  wilfully  committed  trespass  against  the  covenant  God  and 
His  laws  falls  without  mercy  under  divine  punishment  ;  for  him,  therefore,  there 
is  no  more  sacrifice.  The  Mosaic  ritual  is  a  gracious  ordinance  of  God  for  the 
congregation,  w^hich,  though  it  does  indeed  sin  in  its  weakness,  j^et  seeks  the  divine 
countenance.  For  this  congregation  the  approach  to  God  is  made  possible  by  the 
fact  that  God  gives  to  it  in  the  ritual  the  means  of  covering  sin  which  is  well-jjleas- 
ing  to  Him,  the  Holy  One,  {''i'"'^/  (<is  the  expression  so  often  runs).  Thus  the  sanc- 
tuary itself  (11),  for  which  the  1?3  [atonement  money],  paid  by  the  people  at  their 
numbering,  is  used,  is,  Ex.  xxx.  16,  a  p'^i'l  before  Jehovah,  serving  as  a  cover- 
ing for  the  souls  of  the  people  (D5'r)li'3J-'7>*  "^^d'?).  Where,  then,  is  there  room 
in  this  case  for  upoena  vicaria  ?  So,  as  already  shown  (§  92),  the  priesthood  with  its 
ordinances  steps  in  between  the  people  and  Jehovah  as  a  covering  ;  though  both 
the  places  of  worship  and  the  personnel  of  worship,  it  is  true,  require  in  turn  to  be 
themselves  continually  cleansed  and  atoned  for,  since  it  is  the  peculiarity  of  the 
institutions  of  the  Mosaic  worship  generally  that  the  great  number  of  ordinances, 
each  requiring  to  he  supjjlemented  by  the  others,  points  to  the  iyiadequacy  of  the 
tchole,  and  makes  the  need  of  a  complete  and  true  atonement  to  be  felt  (comp. 
§  96).  But  it  can  only  be  the  soul  which  really  covers  and  atones  for  the  soul. 
Man  can  embody  his  thanks  and  requests  in  a  gift  ;  but  this  gift,  as  the  gift  of  an 
impure  and  sinful  person,  is  itself  impure — it  can  please  God  only  as  the  gift  of 
one  w^ho  has  given  himself  up  to  Him.  God  has  therefore  ordained  something  in 
the  ritual  which  represents  this  self-surrender  ;  he  has  put  the  soul  of  the  clean  and 
guiltless  animal,  which  is  presented  to  Him  in  the  blood  of  the  offering,  in  the 
place  of  the  impure  and  sinful  soul  of  the  offerer,  and  this  pure  soul,  coming  be- 
tween the  offerer  and  the  Holy  God,  lets  Him  see  at  His  altar  a  pure  life,  through 


280   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  127'. 

which  the  impure  life  of  the  offerer  is  covered  (12)  ;  and  in  the  same  way  this 
pure  element  serves  to  cover  the  pollutions  clinging  to  the  sanctuary,  and  to  do 
away  with  them.  This  is  the  Old  Testament  type  for  the  passage,  Heb.  ix.  14, 
Of  Sia  TTVEvfiaTOC  aluviov  TTpoaTjvEyKEv  eavrov  a/j.o)fiop  rCi  Qsu). — The  blood  01  sacnnce 
has  thus  a  quite  specific  meaning.  It  is  not,  with  Schultz,  to  be  looked  upon 
merely  as  the  most  noble  gift  dedicated  to  God,  but  it  is  that  which  alone  makes 
God's  acceptance  of  all  gifts  possible,  since  in  it  the  self-sacrifice  of  the  offerer  is 
mcarioushj  accomplished.  Because  man's  incapability  to  enter  immediately  into 
communion  with  God  appears  afresh  at  every  offering,  therefore  every  complete 
offering  must  be  preceded  by  the  covering  of  the  atonement  of  blood,  and  there- 
fore this  is  the  conditio  sine  qua  non  of  the  presentation  of  a  gift  even  in  the 
thank-offering.  Where,  on  the  contrary,  the  whole  act  of  sacrifice  aims  at  atone- 
ment, the  manipulation  of  blood  takes  place  in  a  higher  degree. 

(1)  Executed  by  another,  the  operation  did  not  hold  good,  Mishna  Sebachim 
ii.  1. 

(2)  There  is  no  other  mention  made  of  mixing  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice  with 
water,  as  Heb.  ix.  19  assumes  to  have  been  done  in  the  covenant  sacrifice  ;  see 
Delitzsch  on  this  passage. 

(3)  [Comp.  on  the  meaning  of  the  presentation  of  blood,  and  on  the  defini- 
tion of  133,  the  excellent  section  in  Ritschl,  Doctrine  of  Justification  and  Atone- 
ment., and  the  thorough  article  of  Riehm  occasioned  by  Ritschl's  deductions, 
"  Der  Begriff  der  Siihne  im  A.T."  in  the  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1877. J_ 

(4)  In  like  manner  133  stands  with  the  Beth  instrumenii  in  Lev.  vii.  7  ;  Ex. 
xxix.  33  ;  Num.  v.  8  ;  2  Sam.  xxi.  3. 

(5)  In  tJ'lp?,  Lev.  vi.  23,  xvi.  27,  3  is  to  be  taken  locally. 

(6)  According  to  Ex.  xxx.  12,  the  Israelite,  when  the  people  were  numbered, 
had  to  cover  himself  by  means  of  a  sum  of  money,  in  order  that  no  plague  might 
come  upon  him  when  he  presented  himself  before  the  Holy  God. — In  Num.  xvii. 
11  [A.  V.  xvi.  46]  it  is  the  incensing  which  symbolizes  the  priestly  intercession, 
that  comes  between  the  divine  wrath  (^VR)  ^^^  the  people,  and  by  covering  the 
latter  arrests  the  progress  of  the  plague. 

(7)  [The  passage  "  When  he  maketh  all  the  stones  of  the  altar  as  chalk-stones  that 
are  beaten  in  sunder"  can  be  cited  here  if  this  destruction  of  the  monuments  of 
the  sin  of  the  people  is  understood  as  a  judgment  upon  them.  On  the  other  hand, 
Rielim,  p.  16,  controverts  this  application  of  the  passage,  and  in  general  the 
thought  that  a  punishment  can  also  be  a  means  of  covering.  On  the  explanation 
of  Delitzsch,  "  When  it  (Israel)  maketh  all  the  stones  of  the  altar,"  etc.,  the  pas- 
sage cannot  be  cited  here.] 

(8)  Comp.  Delitzsch,  Gomm.  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebreics,  p.  742  f.  ;  and  see 
§  143,  2. 

(9)  AVhat  Keil,  Bihl.  Archdol.  i.  p.  213,  adduces  against  this  argument  can 
hardly  be  regarded  as  decisive. 

(10)  As  [according  to  some]  is  indicated  in  Isa.  liii.,  and  is  set  forth  definitely 
in  the  later  Jewish  ritual ;  comp.  Outram,  p.  159.  See,  too,  Delitzsch,  I.e. 
p.  738  f. 

(11)  [If,  with  Keil  and  others,  7(1X  T\']h^_,  !]!_  is  understood  of  the  work  on  the 
structure  of  the  tabernacle.     Dillmann  does  not  accept  this  explanation.] 

(12)  [This  view  is  adopted  by  Kohler  (i.  p.  395  f.)  and  F.  W.  Schultz  (inZockler 
i.  p.  254).  Very  nearly  akin  to  it  is  Riehm's  view  (p.  66  f.),  that,  as  a  coverinTj 
for  the  protection  of  liis  soul,  which  is  unclean  through  sin,  the  offerer  brings 
another  soul,  another  life,  which  is  holy  as  proceeding  from  the  divine  Spirit  of  life. 
On  the  other  hand,  according  to  Ritschl  (p.  199  ff.),  the  "covering"  is  made 
to   refer  to   the  sins  of  men,  only  in   the  sin-offering    and    the    trespass-offer- 


§    128.]  THE   BUKNING   OF  THE   OFFERING.  281 

ing ;  but  iu  accordance  with  its  peculiar  signification  it  covers  from  God, 
whom  on  account  of  His  exaltation  and  His  power  the  creature  cannot  approach, 
not  the  sinful.,  but  the  credturely-iceuh  man.  The  obstacle  occasioned  by 
the  difference,  not  moral  but  religio-physical,  between  the  weak  creature  and  the 
Mighty  Creator,  is  so  far  removed  that  man  can  draw  near  to  God  ;  for,  "  the  rea- 
son" (for  the  view  presented  in  Mosaism,  that  the  siglit  of  God  would  bring  death 
upon  a  man)  "  is  the  distance  between  the  transitoriness  of  man  and  the  power 
of  God,  the  fact  that  men  are  flesh"  (p.  203,  comp.  also  the  view  of  the  holiness 
of  God,  p.  92).  The  refutation  of  this  theory  has  been  undertaken  by  Riehm  in 
the  essay  referred  to.  All  the  passages  cited  by  Ritschl  in  support  of  "his  view  of 
the  unapproachableness  of  God  declare  only  that,  but  not  ii^hy  he  is  unapproach- 
able ;  even  Ex.  xxxiii.  20  (in  which  Riehm,  p.  79,  admits  Ritschl's  view  to  be  ex- 
pressed). But  since  this  passage  clearly  does  not  speak  of  mankind  in  general, 
but  only  of  a  particular  case,  it  is  certainly  unnecessary  to  make  it  express  the 
thought  that  man  by  his  very  constitution  cannot  see  God  ;  that  in  virtue  of  his 
being  a  creature  he  cannot  sustain  the  sight  of  him.  Now  if  the  fact  is  that 
Ritschl's  view  is  never  expressed  in  Mosaism,  and  that  it  is  at  most  only  a  con- 
jecture, there  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  regarding  the  fear  of  destruction  expressed 
by  Isaiah  (vi.  6)  on  account  of  his  sirfulness,  as  resting  upon  a  conception  of  later 
origin.  It  is  more  natural  to  regard  this  conception  as  grounded  in  Mosaism, 
since  it  corresponds  with  tlie  ethical  teaching  of  Mosaism  concerning  God,  with 
which  the  view  of  Ritschl  is  less  accordant. 

The  attempt  of  H.  Schultz  (p.  419,  434  f.)  to  maintain  Ritschl's  theory  on  the 
assumption  of  a  post-Isaian  origin  of  the  legislation  concerning  sacrifice,  is,  in 
view  of  Is.  vi.  5.,  still  more  diflieult.  A  further  objection  is  that  the  conception 
in  question  of  the  relation  between  God  and  man,  belonging  as  it  does  to  a  lower 
plane,  is  hardly  reconcilable  with  the  developed  idea  of  God  in  the  prophets.  If 
Ritschl  therefore  were  right,  we  should  have  a  further  argument  against  the  late 
origin  of  the  legislation  against  sacrifice.  It  must  be  added  that  the  ethical 
point  of  view  reappears  nevertheless  in  Schultz  when  he  says  (p.  434)  that  man 
as  flesh,  in  comparison  with  the  holy  God,  is  as  a  creature  weak,  and  on  that  account 
morally  impure,  and  therefore  never,  as  he  is  by  nature,  possessed  of  the  right 
consecration  for  drawing  nigh  to  Israel's  King.  But  it  wonld  be  hard  to  prove 
tliat  two  such  heterogeneous  ideas  as  creaturely  weakness  and  moral  impurity 
"  coincide  in  the  Hebrew  view,"  except  on  the  supposition  of  a  middle  factor  in 
the  Old  Testament  view  of  sin  ;  but  this  gives  us  again  the  ethical  basis  of  the 
"covering."] 

We  cannotreasonably  say  that  on  the  view  presented  in  the  text  the  divine  puni- 
tive justice  is  made  void.  On  the  contrary,  that  justice  is  honoured  when  he  who 
makes  the  offering  declares  that  he  is  in  need  of  a  covering  before  the  Holy  God, 
and  thereby  acknowledges  himself  as  one  who,  though  sinning  in  weakness,  is 
exposed  to  the  divine  judgment. 

§138. 

Contimiation :    The  Burning  of  the  Offering. 

5.  When  the  manipulation  of  the  blood  was  comjileted,  the  hurning  of  the 
offering  followed  (1).  In  the  burnt-offering,  all  the  flesh  and  the  fat  pieces  were  con- 
sumed after  those  parts  had  been  washed  which  required  cleansing  (Lev.  i.  7-0)  ; 
in  the  other  offerings,  only  the  fat  pieces. — As  to  the  meaning  of  the  burning, 
there  is  neither  in  the  ritual  of  sacrifice  nor  elsewhere  in  the  Old  Testament,  any 
support  whatever  for  the  view,  still  defended,  especially  by  Hengstenberg, 
according  to  which  this  ceremony  shows  that  sin  is  not  expiated  by  death,  but 
that  there  is  still  a  punishment  impending  aftef  death — namely,  that  of  hell-fire, 


282   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCllACY.    [§  128. 

the  symbol  whereof  is  the  fire  of  the  altar.  The  true  point  of  the  burning  on  the 
altar  is  clear  from  the  fact  that  not  the  term  'T^.K^,  which  designates  destructive 
burning,  is  used  for  it  (comp.  on  the  contrary,  Lev.  iv.  12,  xvi.  27),  but  always 
"I'Dpn  (Lev.  i.  9,  13,  17  ;  also  of  the  sin-offering,  iv.  10,  19,  etc.),  Avhich  literally 
means  ["'^R  to  smoke]  "to  cause  to  smoke  or  steam  " — that  is,  to  cause  to  ascend 
in  smoke  and  vapor.  The  burning  of  the  offering  does  certainly  complete  the 
surrender  of  it  on  the  part  of  the  offerer,  and  for  him  the  gift  is  destroyed,  but 
only  in  such  a  way  that  at  the  same  time  the  accejitance  of  the  gift  on  the  part  of 
God  ensues — an  odor,  which  is  well-pleasing  to  God,  being  produced  as  the  smoke 
and  vapor  of  the  burnt-offering,  "  the  real  essence"  of  the  offering  (as  Kurtz, 
Das  mosaische  Onfer^  p.  91,  well  expresses  it),  rises  upward,  so  that  He  is  thus 
made  to  enjoy  the  offering,  which  is  what  is  meant  by  the  regularly-recurring 
formula,  Hin^S  nh':  nn  nE?X  (Lev.  i.  9,  13,  17).  How  could  the  vapor  of  the  offer- 
ing be  so  called,  if  the  fire  of  the  altar  were  a  fire  of  punishment,  and  the  burning 
offering  the  symbol  of  those  burning  in  hell?  (This  view  is  truly  hideous.)  The 
symbolic  interpretation  of  the  expression  is  required  by  the  Mosaic  idea  of  God,  in 
accordance  with  which  a  sensuous  enjoyment  on  the  part  of  God  cannot  be  spoken 
of  (2).  But  the  fire  which  consumes  the  offering  is  originally  one  coming  from, 
God,  because  thereby  God  appropriates  the  offering  (Lev.  ix.  24  ;  comp.  in  later 
times,  Judg.  vi.  21  ;  1  Kings  xiii.  38  ;  1  Chron.  xxi.  26  ;  2  Chron.  vii.  1).  It 
must  never  go  out  on  the  altar,  but  must  be  continually  nourished  by  the  burnt- 
offering  and  the  fat  of  the  peace-offering,  Lev.  vi.  5  f.  (12  f.)  ;  and  this  regulation 
does  not  simply  mean  that  the  fire  of  the  offering  must  always  be  ready,  but 
is  meant  to  preserve  the  identity  of  the  fire  on  the  altar  with  the  original  heavenly 
fire,  and  to  represent  at  the  same  time  the  unbroken  course  of  the  adoration  of 
Jehovah  carried  on  in  sacrifice.  All  fire  for  the  offerings  of  incense  had  to  be 
taken  from  this  sacred  fire  on  the  altar  of  burnt-offerings, — a  thing  which  is  not, 
indeed,  expressly  commanded  in  the  law,  but  was  set  forth  practically  by  the 
heavy  punishment  inflicted  on  the  sons  of  Aaron,  who  approached  the  Lord  in  the 
offering  of  incense  with  strange  fire  (Lev.  x).  This  heaven-born  fire  is  the 
symbol  of  the  divine  holiness  M'hich  reveals  itself  in  Israel.  That  God  accepts 
every  offered  gift  only  by  means  of  the  element  which  proceeds  directly  from 
Him,  is  intended  to  teach  that  every  sacrifice  which  man  makes  to  God  is  made 
perfect  only  by  being  taken  up  into  the  purifying,  sanctifying  element  of  divine  life 
(comp.  Mark  ix.  49).  The  latter,  indeed,  becomes  (Lev.  x.  2)  a  consuming  fire 
for  those  who  approach  the  Holy  One  in  a  profane  spirit.  Thus  it  is  clear  how 
the  hearth  of  God  (Isa.  xxxi.  9  ;  Ariel,  Ezek.  xliii.  15  f.)  is  not  merely  symbolical 
of  the  way  in  which  God  sanctifies  His  people,  but  also  of  His  punitive  justice, 
which  annihilates  all  that  resists  Him.  In  this  sense  Isa.  xxxiii.  14  says  :  "The 
sinners  in  Zion  are  afraid  ;  fearfulness  hath  surprised  the  hypocrites.  Who 
among  us  shall  dwell  with  the  devouring  fire?  who  among  us  shall  dwell  with 
everlasting  burnings?"  (Comp.  also  Isa.  x.  17  and  §  48  on  this  passage;  Mai. 
iii.  19.) 

(1)  But  first  the  offerer  had  to  take  otT  the  skin  of  the  animal,  and  to  divide  it 
"  into  its  pieces"  (Lev.  i.  6,  viii.  20)  ;  that  is,  not  to  hack  it  into  rude  lumps,  but 
to  dissect  it  properly.  The  inspection  of  the  intestines,  which  constituted  an  es- 
sential part  of  the  sacrificial  transaction  among  many  ancient  nations,  especially 


§    129.]  EITUAL   OF   THE   FOOD-OFFEKTNG.  283 

the  Phoenicians  (comp.  Movers,  Das  Opferwesen  der  Kartliager,  p.  65),  is  entirely 
banished  from  the  Mosaic  worship. 

(2)  Even  on  the  Homeric  view,  it  is  not  the  pleasure  of  enjoying  the  vapor  of 
the  offering  in  itself,  but  the  readiness  of  man  to  honor  God  with  this  enjoyment, 
which  makes  the  offering  acceptable  ;  comp.  Nagelsbach,  Homer.  Theol.  p.  352. 


§129. 

mtual  of  the  Food-Offering. 

The  ritual  of  the  food-offering  was  very  simple.  At  those  food-offerings  which 
accompanied  the  burnt-offerings  presented  for  the  congregation,  it  is  probable — 
there  is  no  certain  command— that  the  whole  quantity  of  flour,  oil,  and  incense  was 
burnt  on  the  altar  (1).  AXfree-xoill  food-offerings  (comp.  Lev.  ii.  and  vi.  7  ff.),  the 
offerer  brought  the  material  to  the  priest,  who  took  a  handful  of  the  flour  and  oil 
0^?R  i<7p,  ii.  2,  comp.  vi.  8),  together  with  the  whole  of  the  incense,  and  burned 
it  on  the  altar.  The  name  for  the  portion  of  the  food-offering  which  was  jilaced 
on  the  altar,  as  well  as  for  the  incense  laid  on  the  shewbread  (Lev.  xxiv,  7),  is 
i^^^J^,  which  is  interpreted  most  plausibly  by  the  LXX  uvimdcvvov  (Vulgate, 
memoriale),  and  thus  expresses  that  the  odor  of  the  food-offering,  when  burnt, 
was  to  bring  the  offerer  into  God's  gracious  remembrance  ;  as,  on  the  contrary, 
the  offering  of  jealousy.  Num.  v.  15,  is  called  jU'  ^l^I'?  i''"'r^  ^'^^'?)  which  brings 
sin  to  remembrance  (2).  The  food-offerings  accompanying  peace-offeriugs  will 
be  treated  of  along  with  these. — The  law  makes  no  provisions  concerning  the 
manner  of  procedure  in  the  drinh  offering.  According  to  Sir.  1.  15  (17),  the  wine 
was  poured  out  at  the  foot  of  the  altar  ;  according  to  Josephus,  Ant.  iii.  9.  4, 
around  the  altar  (and  this,  say  the  Rabbins,  after  it  had  first  been  salted).  The 
libation,  as  is  probable  a  2)rio}'i,  is  said  to  have  been  the  last  act  of  the  offering 
(3). 

(1)  See  Keil,  Archdologie,  i.  p.  255  f. ;  Winer,  RenUei'il-on,  ed.  3,  ii.  p.  494. 
The  latter  assumes  that  the  food-offerings  mentioned  in  Lev.  xiv.  20  f..  Num.  vi. 
15  ff.,  viii.  8  ff.,  were  also  completely  consumed  on  the  altar.  In  the  law,  on  the 
contrary,  this  was  expressly  prescribed  only  for  the  priestly  Minhha,  Lev.  vi.  16 
(comp.  §  95),  which  was  a  matter  of  course,  since  the  person  who  made  the  offer- 
ing was  not  to  partake  of  his  own  Miniiha. 

(2)  Bahr's  explanation  of  the  n-;3rx  fist  ed.  I.e.  i.  p.  411,  ii.  p.  328)  by  "praise" 
is  supported  by  the  phrase  niD''  017  "TS^n,  but  does  not  agree  well  with  Lev.  v.  12, 
Num.  V.  26  ;  Knobel's  rendering — rememhrnnce  =  gift,  tribute — cannot  adduce 
proof  for  the  use  of  "13?  which  it  assumes  ;  Ewald's  interpretation,  odor,  is  quite 
destitute  of  linguistic  proof,  fit  has  been  accepted,  however,  by  H.  Schultz  (p. 
456),  Kohler  (i."392  f.),  and  Dillmann  (on  Lev.  ii.  2).  The  main  objection  urged 
against  the  explanation  in  the  text,  is  that  the  assumed  Aramaicizing  Hiphil  for- 
mation of  a  word  lielonging  to  the  ancient  sacrificial  language  is  improbable.]— 
The  remainder  of  the  Minhha  fell  to  the  priests,  and  was  to  be  consumed  in  the 
front  court  as  a  thing  most  holy — of  course  after  the  flour  mingled  with  oil  had 
been  baked  without  leaven  (Lev.  ii.  3,  10,  vi.  9  f.,  vii.  6  f.). 

(3)  See  Lund,  I.e.  p.  596,  wh^rp  there  are  more  particulars. 


384  THE  COVE]S"A]SrT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  130. 

3.    ON  THE   VARIOUS   KINDS   OF   OFFERINGS   WITH   REFERENCE   TO   THEIR  PURPOSE. 

§130. 

Various  Kinds  of  Offerings  as  thus  distinguished. 

The  law  of  offering  distinguishes,  with  reference  to  their  design,  four  kinds  of 
offerings, — luriit,  peace,  sin,  and  ^res^^ass  offerings.  The  laws  in  Lev.  i.-iii.  relate  to 
the  two  first  kinds,  which  are  referred  to  one  divine  injunction,  i.  1  ("  and  Jehovah 
called  to  Moses,  and  said  to  him,"  etc.)  ;  between  the  two  the  regulations  for 
food-offerings  are  inserted,  because  these  stood  in  connection  with  the  animal- 
offerings  mentioned  (comp.  Num.  xv.  3  ff.).  They  stand,  however,  in  closer  con- 
nection with  the  burnt-offering,  and  therefore  follow  immediately  upon  it.  In 
chap.  iv.  f.  (again  in  close  connection,  but  traced  to  various  divine  disclosures, 
iv.  1,  V.  14,  20)  follow  those  species  of  offerings  newly  introduced  by  the  Mosaic 
ritual,  the  sin-offering  (up  to  v.  13)  and  the  trespass-offering. — By  this  grouping 
we  are  led  to  refer  the  four  kinds  of  offerings  to  two  prindjjal  classes, — those  which 
assume  that  the  covenant  relation  is  on  the  whole  undisturhed,  and  those  that  are 
meant  to  remove  a  disturbance  which  has  entered  into  this  relation,  and  to  restore 
the  right  relation  (of  the  people  or  of  separate  individuals)  to  God.  The  latter  are 
offerings  of  atonement,  under  which  name  we  may  comprehend  both  sin-  and  tres- 
pass-offerings. If  several  offerings  were  to  be  presented  at  the  same  time,  the  offer- 
ings of  atonement  generally  preceded  the  burnt-offerings,  and  on  the  latter  the 
peace-offerings  followed.  In  respect  to  ranic  (1),  the  offering  of  atonement,  as  E'lp 
D'E^"Jj:3,  a  thing  most  holy  (vi.  18,  22,  vii.  1,  6,  etc.),  stands  higher  than  the  peace- 
offering,  whirh,  like  presented  first-fruits,  is  expressly  called  simply  ti'lp,  a  holy 
thing.  But  since  the  food-offerings  also  are  called  most  holy  (ii.  3,  10,  vi.  10,  x.  12), 
the  designation  D'^'lp^  I^'lp  is  probably  omitted  only  by  accident  in  speaking  of  the 
burnt-offering,  which  certainly  was  an  offering  of  the  higher  rank.  The  distinc- 
tion is  clearly  connected  with  the  partaking  of  the  offering.  Offerings  a  por- 
tion of  which  the  man  who  brings  them  receives  and  partakes  of  are  simply  holy, 
and  so  are  offerings  of  the  second  grade  ;  while,  on  the  contrary,  those  entirely 
withdrawn  from  man's  use,  or  such  that  the  priests  alone  were  allowed  to  par- 
take of  them,  were  most  holy  (hence  this  designation  is  used  also  of  the  shew- 
bread).  It  is  explained  by  what  has  been  said,  why  in  the  enumeration  of  the 
kinds  of  offerings  in  Lev.  vii.  37  (2),  the  peace-offering  staads  last.  The  D'Kl^p 
there  mentioned,  the  offering  at  the  dedication  of  the  priests,  which  has  already 
been  treated  of  under  the  consecration  of  the  priests  (§  95),  was  a  modified  thank- 
offering. 

(1)  The  ritual  (§  127)  points  to  a  difference  of  rank  among  the  offerings,  by 
the  differences  in  the  manipulation  of  the  blood. 

(2)  Lev.  vii.  37 :  o'oSu^n  n^T.Si  D'^ibob]  DtyN^i  rix£3riS]  nnjsS  rirsyh. 


§   131.]  THE   BUliNT-OFrERING.  285 

(a)   THE  BURNT-OFFERING 

§  131. 

The  ordinary  name  of  the  hurnt-offering,  nbj?,  is  not,  with  Ewald,  to  be  derived 
from  a  stem,  "71;^,  which  he  supposes  to  signify  to  glow,  to  Inirn  (Arabic,  ala)  (in 
which  case  the  name  would  come  from  long  burning)  (1),  but  from  nS;^^,  as  is 
shown  by  the  continual  conjunction  of  the  word  with  nSj^PI  ;  while  on  the  contrary, 
^'"Ipn,  U^'^n,  n^f,  are  used  of  the  other  kinds  of  offerings.  It  means  that  which 
ascends, — namely,  on  the  altar, — in  distinction  from  the  offerings  of  which  only 
portions  came  upon  the  altar.  The  interpretation  of  Biihr,  Keil,  Delitzsch  [and 
Dillmann] — "that  which  rises  upward  to  God  in  the  fire" — is  less  probable.  [?J 
The  other  name  of  this  offering,  ^"'72,  that  is,  the  complete  or  wliole  hurnt-offering, 
occurs  only  in  poetical  passages  (Deut.  xxxiii.  10  ;  Ps.  li.  21  [19]  (2).  The  ani- 
mal sacrificed  must  (Lev.  i.),  in  accordance  with  the  high  rank  of  the  of- 
fering, be  a  male,  without  blemish,  taken  from  among  the  most  perfect  of 
the  beasts  of  sacrifice  (from  the  cattle,  sheep,  or  goats)  (3).  After  the  skin  had 
been  taken  off  (which  was  the  perquisite  of  the  priest,  vii.  8),  and  the  offal  re- 
moved, the  animal  was  wliolly  burnt  (j'^'*},  i.  9)  on  the  altar,  and  the  blood  was 
sprinkled  round  it.  On  the  food  and  drink-offerings  connected  with  the  burnt- 
offerings,  see  the  law  in  Num.  xv.  8  ff. 

In  this  offering,  the  people  and  the  individual  expressed  in  a  general  way  their 
adoration  of  Jehovah  and  their  devotion  to  him.  It  is,  as  it  has  been  suitably 
named,  the  sacrificium  latreuticum.  In  virtue  of  the  presentation  of  blood  con- 
nected with  it,  and  as  a  fire-offering  of  pleasant  odor  (nri'J  D'!),  it  is  also  projn- 
tiatory  (appeasing)  in  general ;  it  serves.  Lev.  i.  3,  to  make  him  who  offers  it  accept- 
able he/ore  JeJiovah  niiT'  "'JS?  ''J''^'^? — indeed  in  virtue  of  this  acceptableness,  it 
serves  as  a  covering  or  atonement  for  the  offerer  0^7~l,  ver.  4  ;  comp.  xiv.  20, 
xvi.  24).  The  law  knows  nothing  of  a  special  destination  of  the  burnt-offering 
to  atone  for  a  special  sort  of  sins. — As  the  sacrijicium  latreuticum,  it  was  the 
morning  and  evening  sacrifice  presented  daily  in  the  name  of  the  people  (the 
embodiment  of  morning  and  evening  prayer),  for  which  a  yearling  lamb  was 
always  used.  This  is  called  the  continual  burnt-offering  C'PJ?  ^ /i')-  The  law 
touching  it  is  given  as  early  as  the  organization  of  the  sanctuary  itself  (Ex.  xxix. 
38-42),  and  then  repeated  (Num.  xxviii.  3-8).  Every  day  was  dedicated  to  God 
by  the  TPJ^  riSjr,  and,  as  the  Rabbins  emphatically  set  forth,  was  thus  atoned 
for  ;  with  its  cessation  the  ceremonial  service  itself  is  suspended  (and  so  this  is 
regarded  as  a  great  calamity,  see  Dan.  viii.  11).  No  time  is  set  for  the 
morning  sacrifice  (according  to  Mislma  Tamid  iii.  2,  as  soon  as  it  became  light)  ; 
the  evening  sacrifice  is  to  be  presented  D;3lJ!n  J'3  (between  the  two  evenings), 
Ex.  xxix.  39,  41.  This  expression,  which  occurs  frequently  in  the  Pentateuch 
(also  in  the  Paschal  law),  has  long  been  variously  interpreted  by  the  Jews. 
According  to  the  Karaites  (who  appeal  to  Deut.  xvi.  6)  and  the  Samaritans  (like- 
wise Aben  Ezra),  it  means  the  time  between  sunset  and  total  darkness  ;  according 
to  the  Pharisees,  between  the  hour  when  the  sun  declines  (three  o'clock  in  the  after- 
noon) and  sunset  (4)  ;    while  Kimchi  and  Rashi  (and,  in  modern  times,  Hitzig) 


28G   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRA(;Y.    [5<  131. 

say  that  sunset  was  the  boundary-line  between  the  two  evenings  (5).  The  even- 
ing sacrifice  was  intended,  Lev.  vi.  9,  to  burn  through  the  whole  night  till  the  morn- 
ing. Probably  at  the  same  time  as  the  TpJn  Pb'i?  was  presented,  the  offering  of 
incense,  also  presented  twice  daily,  was  kindled  on  the  inner  altar  (already 
spoken  of  in  §  117).  The  time  for  presenting  the  offering  was  also  the  hour  of 
prayer  (Dan.  ix.  21  ;  Acts.  iii.  1),  as,  generally  speaking,  it  is  likely  that  an  act 
of  prayer  was  combined  with  the  burnt-offering  (comp.  2  Chron.  xxix.  27-30). 
With  the  morning  and  evening  sacrifice  were  also  combined  a  food-  and  drink- 
offering  ;  between  these  two,  tradition  makes  the  high  priest's  food-offering  to 
have  been  presented,  for  which  reference  is  made  to  the  law  in  Lev.  vi.  12-16 
(19-23)  (6)  ;  comp.  Sir.  xlv.  14  (17). — The  Sabbath,  the  new  moon,  and  the 
feasts  were  marked  by  an  increased  burnt-offering,  Num.  xxviii.  9  ff.  See  in  2 
Chron.  xxix.  27-30  a  descrijjtion  of  the  form  of  the  festal  burnt-offerings  in  the 
temple  at  a  later  time  (7). — Even  strangers  who  wished  to  honor  Jehovah  might 
(Lev.  xvii.  8,  xxii.  18,  25)  offer  burnt-offerings  and  sacrifices  (8). 

(1)  See  Ewald,  Antiquities,  p.  47. — By  the  LXX,  Hi];  is  generally  translated 
6?iOKavT0)fia,  sometimes  also  d'AoKapnu/na. 

(2)  The  term  rl2  refers  to  the  complete  burning  ;  compare  the  use  of  the  word 
for  the  priestly  Minhha,  which  was  also  to  be  completely  burnt  (Lev.  vi.  15  f.,  and 
also  Deut.  xiii.  17).  The  word  has  a  more  comprehensive  meaning  in  the 
Phanician  ritual  ;  there  it  is  a  designation  of  sacrifice  in  general,  as  is  to  be  con- 
cluded from  the  Punic  sacrificial  tablet  found  in  Marseilles.  See  Movers,  I.e. 
p.  59  ff.  ;  Ewald,  BiU.  Jahrl.  i.  p.  211. 

(3)  So,  also,  for  the  sin-offerings  of  higher  rank,  male  animals  are  commanded 
to  be  used. — It  was  only  for  turtle-doves  and  young  pigeons  offered  by  the  poor 
that  the  sex  was  not  prescribed. 

(4)  This  was  the  practice  in  the  temple  ;  according  to  Mishna  Pesacliim  v.  1,  tiie 
evening  offering  was  slaughtered  half  an  hour  after  the  eighth  hour  of  the  day  (that 
is,  about  half  past  two  o'clock),  and  offered  half  anliour  after  the  ninth  (half  past 
three). 

(5)  As  the  evening  comprehends  the  whole  time  immediately  before  and  after 
sunset,  it  may  be  reckoned  partly  to  the  past  day  as  its  close  (comp.  Lev.  xxiii. 
32),  and  partly  to  the  next  day  as  its  beginning  ;  by  the  latter  usage,  for  example, 
D^"!'^np7,  in  1  Sam.  xxx.  17,  finds  its  explanation  (see  Thenius  on  this  passage). 
The  expression  D'37^_  is  probably  to  be  primarily  traced  to  this  division  of  the  even- 
ing, justas  O'lnv,  properly  "  the  pair  of  lights,"  denotes  mid-day  as  the  time  before 
and  after  the  highest  position  of  the  sun  (see  Ewald,  Ausf.  Lelirh.  der  he?»'.  Sjyrache, 
ed.  8,  p.  475  f.).  Comp.  also  Gesenius,  Thesaur.  ii.  p.  1064  f.  [and  Dillmann  on 
Ex.,  xii.  6]. 

(6)  See  Lund,  I.e.  pp.  921  and  928.— The  high  priest  had  to  offer  it  for  the 
first  time  on  the  day  of  his  anointing  C^^Jn  nn^O)  (comp.  §  95,  note  22),  and 
then  to  offer  the  same  for  himself  every  day  (pP'^D  ^Hp?,  that  is,  food-offering  in 
the  pan),  half  in  the  morning  and  half  in  the  evening  ;  and  this  he  did  (Josephus, 
Ant.  iii.  10.  7)  out  of  his  own  means,  presenting  it  either  himself  or  by  a  substi- 
tute. Against  the  view,  still  defended  by  Keil  (Arehaol.  i.  p.  174  f.)  and  others, 
which  entirely  denies  the  existence  of  this  daily  Minhha  of  the  high  priest,  see 
the  exact  discussion  of  this  point  ])y  Thalhofer,  I.e.  p.  139  ff.  ;  comp.  Delitzsch, 
Comment,  on  the  Epistle  to  the  IMireics,  ii.  p.  8  f. 

(7)  As  soon  as  the  act  of  offering  began,  the  choir  of  Levites  struck  up  a  psalm, 
in  which  they  were  joined  by  the  trumpets  of  the  priests.  During  the  whole 
service  the  assembled  congregation  stood  praying  ;  at  the  close,  they  threw  them- 
selves upon  their  knees,  and  then  most  likely  received  the  priestly  blessing.     It 


§    132.]  THE    PEACE-OFFERIKG.  287 

followed  from  the  fact  that  the  meaning  of  the  burnt-offering  is  of  a  general  kind, 
that  it  was  sometimes  united  with  special  offerings.  In  acts  of  atonement  it  gen- 
erally followed  the  sin-offering,  and  at  public  thanksgivings  and  other  festivities 
formed  a  basis  for  the  thank-offering,  etc.  ;  see  the  collection  by  Knobel  on  Lev. 
i.  3,  in  Dillmann,  p.  379  ff. 

(8)  Comp.  MisluM  Shehdim  Tii.  6. — Especially  since  the  time  of  Alexander  the 
Great,  the  heathen  rulers  of  the  Jews  caused  burnt-offerings  to  be  offered  for 
them  ;  and  Augustus  actually  instituted  a  daily  burnt-offering  of  two  lambs  and  a 
bullock  for  himself  (Philo,  leg.  ad  Caj.  §  40).  This  offering  was  a  sign  of 
acknowledgment  of  his  imperial  majesty  (comp.  Josephus,  c.  Ap.  ii.  6)  ;  and 
therefore  when,  at  the  beginning  of  tiie  Jewish  war,  the  acceptance  of  any  offer- 
ing from  a  Gentile  was  declined  at  the  instigation  of  Eleazar,  the  rejection  of  tlie 
emperor's  offering  came  to  be  regarded  as  an  open  breach  with  the  Roman 
Government  (Josephus,  Bell.  J  ad.  ii.  17.  2).  Comp.  on  this  point  especially 
Lund,  I.e.  p.  634  f. 

(&)    THE   PEACE-OFFERING. 

§  132. 

Its  Name,  Notion,  and  Dimsion. 

The  name  of  this  sacrifice  (D'OvK/ri  npT)  (1)  may  be  explained  in  a  twofold 
manner.  According  to  the  Rabbinic  view  (2),  it  is  derived  from  the  Kal  ol'^, 
integer  fuit,  to  be  entire.  Hence  ^P /tf',  Ps.  vii.  4,  he  who  is  in  a  peaceful  or 
friendly  relation  to  me.  This  makes  the  name  of  the  sacrifice  declare  that  the 
offerer  is  in  a  relation  of  integrity,  a  relation  of  peace  and  friendship  with  God. 
Accordingly  the  LXX  render  the  words  by  dprivLnf]  dvala  and  sometimes  by 
ffuTT^piov,  the  Vulgate  by  sacriflcia  ])acifica  (3),  moderns  by  peace-  or  thank-offering. 
That  such  an  idea  is  at  all  events  included  in  that  of  the  peace-offering,  is  evi- 
dent from  the  fact  that,  in  those  cases  in  which  these  sacrifices  appear  in  conjunc- 
tion with  sin-offerings,  the  latter  (as  also  burnt-offerings)  are  to  be  offered  first  ; 
comp.  Lev.  ix.  18,  Num.  vi.  16,  etc.  Thus  the  peace-offering  is  manifestly  a 
declaration  that  a  relation  of  perfect  peace  between  Jehovah  and  the  offerer  is 
restored  by  means  of  the  atonement  effected,  A  second  explanation  of  the  ex- 
pression (4),  however,  refers  it  to  the  Piel  D-?!!/,  to  compensate,  to  which  the  noun 
DT^  is  said  to  be  related  in  the  same  manner  as  "^^i,  atonement,  to  "^^^  (5). 
In  support  of  this  explanation,  it  may  be  advanced  that  the  Piel  D?^  is  the 
technical  term  for  the  act  of  offering  this  sacrifice,  for  it  is  frequently  used  in 
combination  with  O'llJ  (vows,  which  are  a  kind  of  D'pTip),  Deut.  xxiii.  22, 
etc.,  and  also  with  fimn  (offerings  of  thanksgiving),  Ps.  Ivi.  13  ;  nay,  in  Hos. 
xiv.  2,  to  offer  calves  as  peace-offerings  is  called  D'lD  D^n.  Care  must,  however, 
be  taken,  if  this  derivation  is  adopted,  not  to  limit  the  D'P7k^  to  the  specific 
notion  of  the  tTianlc-offering,  for  the  former  not  only  include  the  sacrificia  eucha- 
ristica,  but  undoubtedly  also  the  sacrijicia  impetratoria,  the  supplicatory  offerings  ; 
for  which  reason  peace-offerings  are  offered,  e.g.  1  Sam.  xiii.  9,  before  commencing 
a  battle,  and  Judg.  xx.  26,  xxi.  4,  2  Sam.  xxiv.  25,  when  public  misfortunes  had 
been  suffered.  Hence  the  D/^  must  be  understood  in  a  more  general  sense  as  a 
return  not  only  for  some  benefit  already  obtained,  but  also  for  one  still  desired  ; 
in  short,  as  a  testimony  that  to  God  alone  are  we  indebted  for  whatever  we 
receive  or  hope  for  (6).     These  offerings  Avere  called  Q'nnj  (n3I  signifying  to 


288   THE  COVEISTANT  OF  GOD  AVITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  132. 

slay  with  reference  to  eating),  because  a  sacrificial  repast  was  one  of  their 
essential  elements,  while  the  consumption  of  the  entire  sacrifice  on  the  altar 
was  peculiar  to  the  burnt-ofiering.  In  the  Pentateuch  this  narrower  use  of 
n^I  is  adhered  to,  the  word  being  never  there  used  of  an  atoning  sacrifice  ;  nor 
can  such  usage  be  proved  of  the  subsequent  books  of  the  Old  Testament  (7), 
for  in  Ps.  li.  18  the  thank-offerings  of  the  justified  (Hupfcld,  Hengstenberg, 
Delitzsch)  are  spoken  of.  (Moreover,  for  blood-guiltiness,  no  sin-offering  could 
be  brought.) 

With  respect  also  to  the  division  of  the  peace-offerings,  various  opinions  have 
been  entertained,  since  the  chief  passage  on  this  matter.  Lev.  vii.  11  sqq.,  admits 
of  different  interpretations.  According  to  Hengstenberg  {Evang.  Kirchenzeitung , 
1852,  p.  134),  the  term  used,  ver.  12  sq.,  n"Jin-7j;  n^T.  (sacrifice  of  thanksgiving, 
A. v.),  does  not  designate  one  kind  of  peace-offering,  but  is  another  name  for 
the  whole  species,  and  indicates  the  emotions  which  are  expressed  by  these  sac- 
rifices. Hence  there  would  be  only  two  hinds  of  peace-offerings  (comp.  xxii.  18, 
21),  viz.  C"!"!^  and  ^i^'IJ  both  being  JTlin  (on  account  of  thankfulness),  comp. 
Ps.  liv.  8,  Ivi.  13,  cvi.  18.  This  view  makes  it  impossible  to  understand  the  injunc- 
tion concerning  the  flesh  of  the  sacrifice.  Lev.  vii.  15  in  its  relation  with  16-18,  in 
its  natural  meaning.  Besides,  it  must  be  observed  that  a  nDJ.,  differing  from  the 
D'"?7i'  and  ^^-'l^)  is  also  mentioned  xxiii.  37  and  Deut.  xii.  6.  According  to  the 
usual  and  correct  view,  three  hinds  are  distinguished  in  the  above-cited  passage  of 
Leviticus,  viz.  1,  nnin  H^T  (or,  as  it  is  called,  vers.  13  and  15,  CP*?^  nnin  n??), 
the  thank  or  praise  offering ;  2,  "I^J  the  vow  ;  and  3,  ^I^HJ,  the  free-will 
offering.  The  difference,  however,  between  the  thank-offering  and  the  two 
others  can  hardly  be  so  defined  (as  by  Ewald,  Antiquities  of  Israel,  p.  52)  as  to 
make  the  latter  a  sacrifice  of  greater  solemnity  and  excellence  because  of  the 
psalms  and  hymns  with  which  the  singers  and  musicians  accompanied  it.  On 
the  contrary,  it  was  probably  this  :  the  rrjin  n^I  being  offered  without  having 
been  previously  promised  for  some  benefit  received,  and  thus  referring  to  a  favor 
not  already  supplicated  (8),  was  the  highest  among  the  U'"0l''\j.  The  vow,  "IIJ, 
on  the  contrary,  is  a  promised  offering  usually  presented  after  the  reception  of 
some  benefit  previously  entreated  ;  yet  the  one  making  a  promise  might  connect 
an  offering  immediately  with  his  prayer,  and  it  would  fall  under  this  species  ; 
but  the  I'l.^  always  refers  to  something  distinctly  prayed  for.  And  lastly,  the 
nilJ  is  every  free  gift  for  which  there  was  no  other  occasion  than  the  will  of 
the  offerer,  whom  his  heart  impelled  to  show  his  thankful  sense  of  all  the  bless- 
ings which  the  goodness  of  God  had  bestowed  on  him.  Comp.  especially  Deut. 
xvi.  10  ;  and  in  explanation  of  the  expression,  Ex.  xxxv.  29  (DnJ<  Wzb  31J  "i^N) 
and  XXV.  2  ('u'?  ^JD'n:  -|i;;.'X).  The  H^IJ,  of  wliich  a  general  feeling  of  love  to  God 
is  the  impelling  cause,  would  thus  be  contrasted  not  merely  with  the  obligation 
laid  ujjon  the  offerer  by  a  vow,  but  also  with  sacrifices  occasioned  by  some  special 
benefit  (9).  In  the  two  first  kinds,  the  precepts  concerning  the  unblemished 
nature  of  the  victim  were  to  be  observed,  the  requirements  being,  according  to 
Lev.  xxii.  23,  less  strict  in  the  case  of  the  n!l"1J  (10). 

(1)  A  single  offering  of  this  kind  is  thus  designated  in  the  Pentateuch.  The 
singular  a2^  occurs  in  the  Old  Testament  only  in  Amos  v.  32. 


^   133.]  THE   RITUAL   OF  THE   PEACE-OPFERING.  289 

(2)  Embraced,  among  recent  writers,  especially  by  Neumann,  Sacra  N.  T.  sal- 
uUiria,  1854,  p.  18  sqq. 

(3)  The  only  fault  to  be  found  Math  the  latter  translation  is  that  it  makes  it 
appear  as  if  peace  were  not  made  with  God  until  this  sacrifice  was  offered,  while 
in  fact  the  offering  presupposes  that  this  peace  already  exists,  and  is  intended 
only  to  confirm  and  strengthen  it.  [Dillmann  on  Lev.  iii.  1  objects  to  this  expla- 
nation, at  least  to  the  turn  of  the  thought  as  conveying  a  contrast  with  sin- 
and  trespass-offerings,  that  the  name  could  not  have  originally  had  this  signifi- 
cation, because  the  U"Oi'd,  both  in  fact  and  in  name,  were  much  older  than  the 
sin-offering.  From  the  added  clause,  "which  he  shall  bring  near  to  Jehovah,"  or 
"which  are  for  Jehovah,"  he  infers  that  there  must  have  been  other  "U'"T  which 
were  not  for  Jehovah,  and  consequently  not  offerings,  and  so  feels  obliged  to 
understand  the  words  as  originally  expressing  a  repast  of  peace  and  friendship.] 

(4)  This  view  has  recently  been  advocated  by  Hofmann  ;  comp.  his  apt  remarks 
in  his  Schriftbeweis,  ii.  2d  ed.  p.  227,  and  by  Knobel  on  Lev.  iii,  1. 

(5)  On  the  frequent  coincidence  in  meaning  of  nouns  derived  from  the  Kal, 
with  the  Piel  of  their  verb,  comp.  Ewald,  Aiisf.  Lehrh.  der  H.ehi\  Sjirache,  §  150&. 

(G)  Just  as  in  the  Psalms  God  is  frequently  thanked  beforehand  for  help 
which  is  expected,  and  as  D'JO/ti',  Dl7i7,  Isa.  i.  23,  Mic.  vii.  3,  signifies  a  re- 
muneration to  the  judge  for  some  favor  to  be  granted  (comp.  Hofmann,  ib).  But 
even  in  this  view  of  the  D/^  the  fact  must  not  be  lost  sight  of,  that  this  offering 
presupposes  the  existence  of  a  friendly  relation  between  God  and  the  offerer,  and 
is  intended  to  express  his  thankfulness  for  manifestations  of  Divine  goodness 
bestowed  or  to  be  bestowed  on  account  of  this  relation. 

(7)  In  the  subsequent  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  n3T  is  occasionally  used  in  a 
wider  sense,  signifying  sometimes  (especially  when  combined  with  nn;p)  bloody 
sacrifices  in  general,  sometimes  such  sacrifices  with  the  exclusion  of  the  n7|'. 
Still,  the  examples  adduced  by  Gusset,  Lex.  Hebr.  ed.  2,  415,  Neumann,  p.  7  ff, 
and  others,  require  much  sifting,  and  many  passages  where  the  wider  meaning 
has  been  assumed  refer  only  to  the  D'D/ty.  [So  e.g.  as  the  connection  shows,  in 
Jer.  vii.  22,  comp.  21  and  xvii.  26.] 

(8)  Properly  a  sacrifice  of  confession  (according  to  the  original  meaning 
of  n"1in),  of  grateful  acknowledgment  for  Divine  favors  as  undeserved  as  they 
were  unexpected. 

(9)  These  distinctions  are,  for  want  of  more  exact  definitions,  comparatively  con- 
jectural. 

(10)  Even  animals  with  limbs  abnormally  long  or  short  might  be  offered.  Free- 
will offerings  of  money  for  the  repair  of  the  sanctuary  and  its  vessels  were  also 
reckoned  among  the  J^^^l^  in  tlieir  wider  sense  (Ex.  xxv.  2,  xxxv.  21).  The  only 
remark  to  be  made  on  the  material  of  the  ])eace-offering  is  that  cattle,  sheep,  or 
goats  of  both  seves  might  be  used  (Lev.  iii.  fi),  though  even  here  preference  seems 
to  have  been  given  to  males  (comp.  such  passages  as  ix.  4,  18,  Num.  vii.  17  sqq.), 
and  that  pigeons  are  never  mentioned.  The  peace-offering  was,  like  the  burnt- 
offering,  accompanied  by  a  food-and  a  drink-offering,  for  it  is  evident  from  Num. 
XV.  3  that  what  is  prescribed  concerning  the  sacrifice  of  thanksgiving.  Lev.  vii. 
12,  applies  also  to  the  other  two  kinds. 


§133. 

The  Ritual  of  the  Peace- Offering. 

In  the  ritual  of  the  peace-offering,  the  proceedings  were,  down  to  and  includ- 
ing the  sprinkling  of  the  blood,  identical  with  those  practised  at  the  burnt- 
offering  (comp.  Lev.  iii.  2),  except  that,  as  already  remarked,  §  126,  the  slaying 


290   THE  COVEKAKT  OF  GOD  WITlt  ISRAEL  AI^D  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  133. 

of  the  animal  was  not  restricted  to  the  north  side  of  the  altar.  On  the  other 
hand,  a  proceeding  essentially  differing  from  the  ritual  of  the  burnt-offering  took 
place  after  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood.  The  whole  animal  was  not  placed  upon 
the  altar,  but  the  fat  alone  was  removed  at  the  cutting  up  of  the  animal  and 
afterward  burnt  (Lev.  iii.  3-5,  9-11,  14-16,  ix.  19  sq.).  This  fat  consisted,  in 
the  case  of  oxen  and  goats,  of  four,  in  that  of  sheep,  of  five  parts.  The  fat 
interspersed  in  the  flesh  was  not  sacrificed,  and  the  prohibition  of  fat  as  food 
relates  only  to  these  separable  portions  (Lev.  vii.  23-25).  The  reasoii  for  burning 
these  fatty  portions  on  the  altar  was  that  they  were  regarded  as  the  choice  parts 
of  the  animal.  After  the  removal  of  the  fat,  the  offerer  of  a  private  peace-offer- 
ing was  to  bring  with  his  own  hand  not  only  this,  but  also  the  wave-breast  (p]J}) 
(1)  and  the  right  Plty  (according  to  the  general  view — LXX,  ftpaxiuv  ;  Vulgate, 
annus — the  right  shoulder,  therefore  a  fore  leg  ;  according  to  Knobel,  the  right 
hind  leg,  the  right  thigh)  to  the  priest  as  a  heave-offering  (Lev.  vii.  29-34).  This 
brings  us  to  discuss  the  ceremony  of  the  waving  or  swinging  (^'Jri,  '^?1^^),  as 
well  as  the  question,  what  relation  this  had  to  that  of  heaving  (0'"in,  noi"iJ]l).  Be- 
sides the  case  just  mentioned,  the  former  occurred  also  at  the  peace-offerings 
enjoined  at  the  consecration  of  jiriests  (Lev.  vii.  29-34)  and  the  dedication  of 
Nazarites  (Num.  vi.  20),  at  the  jealousy-offering  (ver.  25),  at  the  trespass-offering 
of  the  leper  (Lev.  xiv.  12),  at  the  offering  of  the  sheaf  of  new  grain  at  the  Pass- 
over, and  the  loaves  of  first-ripe  grain  and  peace-offering  lambs  at  the  Feast  of 
"Weeks  (2).  According  to  Jewish  tradition,  which  coincides  with  the  intimations 
given  in  Ex.  xxix.  24,  Lev.  viii.  27,  etc.,  it  consisted  in  the  priest's  laying  the 
matter  to  be  waved  ujjon  the  hands  of  the  offerer  (3),  placing  his  hands  under 
those  of  the  latter,  and  moving  them  in  a  horizontal  direction — backward  and 
forward,  according  to  the  Talmud  (><'^??1  V  z^'^))  ^^^  ^^so  toward  the  right  and 
left,  that  is,  toward  the  four  quarters  of  the  heavens,  according  to  some  later 
Rabbins.  Of  the  meaning  of  the  transaction,  in  the  simpler  form  in  which  the 
Talmud  describes  it,  no  doubt  can  exist,  when  it  is  considered  that  the  waving 
took  place  almost  exclusively  in  the  case  of  such  portions  of  sacrifices  as  were 
allotted  to  the  jmiests  as  a  gift  from  Jehovah  (4).  The  swinging  forward  evidently 
denoted  the  presentation  of  the  gift  to  God, — it  was  a  declaration  in  action  that 
it  properly  belonged  to  Him  ;  while  the  moving  it  backward  again  indicated  that 
God  on  His  part  returned  the  gift,  and  assigned  it  to  the  priest.  In  the  view 
connected,  on  the  other  hand,  with  the  Rabbinical  explanation,  according  to 
which  the  ceremony  is  said  to  allude  to  the  universal  government  of  God,  it  is 
not  easy  to  see  why  such  an  acknowledgment  of  the  Divine  omnipresence  (as 
Sykes,  Ucber  die  Oj)fer,  edited  by  Semler,  pp.  36,  54,  designates  the  wave-offering) 
should  take  place  just  with  those  portions  of  the  sacrifices  which  were  relin- 
quished to  the  priests  (5).  We  next  proceed  to  the  heaving,  which  also,  according 
to  most  of  the  Rabbins,  who  are  followed  in  this  respect  by  many  modern  writers, 
particularly  by  Kurtz,  was  a  sj^ecial  ceremony,  a  moving  upward  and  downward 
of  portions  of  the  sacrifice  with  reference  to  the  God  who  rules  in  heaven  and  on 
earth.  In  some  instances  combined  with  the  wave-offering,  in  others  practised 
independently,  viz.  in  the  case  of  those  portions  of  a  sacrifice  which  were  burnt 
as  exclusively  belonging  to  God,  the  memorial  {askara,  of  the  meat-offering  and 


§    133.]  THE    RITUAL   OF   THE    PEACE-OFFERlIsra.  291 

the  fat,  Lev.  ii.  9,  iv.  8,  10,  etc.),  whence  it  has  been  remarked  that,  generally 
speaking,  heaving  and  burning  appear  in  combination.  The  ceremony  of  heaving 
likewise  took  place  with  the  above-named  heave-shoulder  (Piiy  nonriH).-  But 
though  unquestionably  a  separate  ceremony  of  heaving  occurs  in  the  later  Jewish 
ritual,  this  cannot  be  pointed  out  in  the  Pentateuch  (6).  Especially  is  it  to  be  observed 
that  in  the  passages  on  sacrifice,  C^n  is  never  combined  with  Hiri'-vK,  or,  as  ^'Jn 
is,  with  n'ln;  'JS'?,  but  with  niri'''?  (we  also  meet  with  n'ln;  npni;\,  the  heave  be- 
longing to  Jehovah),  and  that  the  |P  partitive  is  generally  used  with  the  word, 
to  specify  from  what  whole  the  heave  is  to  be  taken  (comp.  Lev.  ii.  9,  iv.  8,  10, 
vi.  8,  etc.)  (7).  The  expression  np^ljjlj  moreover,  elsewhere  signifies  nothing  else 
than  what  is  taken  away,  what  is  separated  from  the  whole  to  be  offered  to  the 
Lord.  In  this  sense  it  is  used  of  the  first-born,  the  tenth,  the  devoted,  the  Lord's 
share  of  the  spoil  (Num.  xv.  19  sq.,  xviii.  11  sq.,  xxxi.  41,  etc.),  the  word  denot- 
ing in  general  the  sacred  tribute  (comp.  Lev.  xxii.  12  ;  Num.  v.  9).  This 
meaning  is  also  suitable  in  the  passages  concerning  sacrifice  ;  nor  are  we  obliged 
in  a  single  instance  to  accept  a  special  ceremony  of  heaving.  Thus  npitfl  pil^ 
also  is  the  shoulder  or  thigh,  which,  after  the  Lord  has  received  His  part  and 
relinquished  the  breast  of  it  to  the  priest,  is  relinquished  or  taken  off  on  the  part 
of  the  offerer  in  favor  of  the  officiating  priest. — After  the  separation  of  the  wave- 
breast,  the  rest  of  the  flesh  was  the  portion  of  the  offerers,  to  be  used  by  them  as 
a  sacrificial  feast  in  the  sanctuary,  in  which  all  the  members  of  their  families  and 
other  guests  might  participate.  Levitical  cleanness  was  indispensable  in  all  who 
ate  of  the  sacrifices  ;  any  one  who  should,  in  spite  of  any  uncleanness  he  might 
have  incurred,  eat  thereof,  was  to  be  cut  off.  In  the  case  of  the  thank-offering, 
the  flesh  was  to  be  consumed  on  the  same  day  (vii.  15,  xxii.  29  sq.)  ;  in  that  of 
other  sacrifices,  on  the  second  at  farthest ;  if  any  remained  till  the  third  day,  it 
was  to  be  burned  (vii.  16  sq.,  xix.  6  sq.)  (8).  The  signification  of  this  sacrificial 
repast  was  not  (as  Bahr,  Symbolik,  1st  ed.  ii.  p.  374,  and  others  suppose),  that 
Jehovah,  as  proprietor  of  the  flesh  which  was  offered,  was  the  host,  and  they 
who  fed  thereon  His  guests  ;  on  the  contrary,  it  was  rather  God  who  conde- 
scended to  be  the  guest  of  the  offerer,  receiving  the  breast  as  His  portion  of 
honor,  and  then  relinquishing  it  to  His  servant  the  priest.  Thus  the  repast  was 
a  pledge  of  the  Uessed  felloicship  into  which  He  would  enter  with  His  people  among 
whom  He  dwelt  (9).  It  was  also  to  be  a  lovefeast,  at  which,  besides  the  mem- 
bers of  the  family,  the  Levites  (Deut.  xii.  18)  and  (as  prescribed,  Deut.  xvi.  11, 
in  the  case  of  the  peace-offerings  at  Pentecost)  the  needy  were  to  find  refresh- 
ment. Niggardliness  was  prevented  by  the  prohibition  of  a  longer  keeping  of 
the  flesh  ;  still,  the  principal  reason  of  the  injunction  to  consume  it  before  the 
third  day,  may  have  lain  in  the  likelihood  of  corruption  taking  place.  In  the 
thank-offering,  the  highest  kind  of  peace-offering,  the  danger  of  impurity  it  was 
necessary  to  guard  against  most  carefully. 

(1)  "  The  breast,  which  in  oxen,  sheep,  and  goats  is  called  the  brisket,  consists 
mostly  of  gristly  fat,  and  is  one  of  the  best-flavored  portions"  (Knobel). 

(2)  In  the  case  both  of  the  last  named  and  of  the  trespass-offering  lamb  of  the 
leper,  it  took  place  with  the  whole  animal  before  it  was  slain. 

(3)  With  respect  to  this  part  of  the  transaction,  the  LXX  denote  it  by  Encridivai, 
knWe/ia, 


292   THE  COVEIfANT  OF  GOD  WITH  iSRAEt  ANt)  tllK  TllfiOCKACY.    [§  134. 

(4)  This  refers  also,  according  to  Num.  viii.  19,'  to  the  wave  of  the  Levites. — 
On  the  meaning  of  the  ceremony,  Lev.  viii.  25  sq.,  see  §  95. 

(5)  Compare  on  this  point  especially  Keil,  Archmol.  i.  p.  253. 

(6)  In  this  respect,  with  Dillmann,  I  entirely  coincide  with  Knobel  on  Lev.  vii. 
33,  in  ojjposition  to  Kurtz.  Comp.  also  on  this  point,  Keil,  ArchoBol.  p.  244  sq.  ; 
Gesenius,  too,  who  in  his  Thesaurus,  ii.  p.  866,  embraced  the  usual  view,  subse- 
quently renounced  it,  iii.  p.  1377. 

(7)  The  p  QnO,  Lev.  ii.  9,  corresponds  with  the  |P  |*Pp^  of  ver.  2,  and  the 
"iDin,  in  vers.  31  and  35,  with  the  Dl^in  in  Lev.  iv.  10. 

(8)  This  was  also  prescribed  with  respect  to  such  flesh  of  sacrifices  as  had  come 
in  contact  with  anything  unclean  (Lev.  vii.  19).  The  fact  that  the  peace-offering 
terminated  in  a  repast  exjilains  the  circumstance  that,  according  to  Lev.  vii.  13, 
besides  the  unleavened  bread  of  the  meat-offering,  leavened  bread  was  also  to  be 
offered,  which,  however,  was  not  laid  on  the  altar,  but  was  simply  eaten  with  the 
flesh  at  the  ensuing  meal.  It  is  utterly  unnecessary  to  understand  the  passage  as 
declaring  that  the  unleavened  meat-offering  itself  was  offered  upon  a  layer  of 
leavened  bread.     See  Knobel  and  Dillmann  on  the  passage. 

(9)  It  is  self-evident  that  cleanness  was  exacted  of  all  participators  in  such  an 
act  of  communion  ;  its  opposite  would  have  been  an  act  of  flagrant  contempt  on 
the  part  of  the  invited  guests,  hence  the  threat  of  severe  punishment,  Lev. 
xii,  20  f. 

§134. 

Of  Vows  (1). 

The  idea  of  the  vow  extends  much  farther  than  to  those  vowed  sacrifices 
properly  so  called  (discussed  in  §  132).  For  the  vow  positive,  the  promise  to  dedi- 
cate something  to  God  may  refer  not  merely  to  a  sacrifice,  but  to  the  dedication  of 
some  other  object ;  and  besides  this,  there  is  the  vow  negative,  the  promise  to 
renounce  some  act  or  enjoyment  for  the  glory  of  Ood.  It  is  only  with  reference  to 
the  positive  vow  that  the  word  T|J  is  used  in  the  law  (with  the  exception  of  Num. 
vi.  5),  while  the  negative  vow  (the  forswearing,  as  it  had  been  called,  in  opposi- 
tion to  swearing)  is  designated  by  "^DX  or  1DX,  obligatio  (Num.  xxx.  3  sq.),  or 
more  fully  by  ^i?}  XTliJj;'?  1DN  ni!3i2?  (ver.  14).— The  positive  vow  first  appears  in 
the  Old  Testament  in  Gen.  xxviii.  20-22,  as  a  promise  to  erect  a  place  of  worship, 
and  might  extend  to  persons,  even  the  person  of  the  vower,  to  animals  and  to 
lands.  Persons  were  dedicated  to  the  service  of  the  sanctuary  (thus  Hannah 
vowed  her  son,  1  Sam.  i.  11)  ;  and  it  is  probably  on  this  ground  that  the  circum- 
stance of  women  being  employed  in  the  sanctuary  (Ex.  xxxviii.  8  ;  1  Sam.  ii.  22 
(2))  is  to  be  explained.  Persons  and  lands  might,  unclean  animals  must,  be  re- 
deemed at  an  appointed  valuation — see  the  law.  Lev.  xxvii.  1-25  (3)  ;  clean 
animals,  on  the  other  hand,  which  had  been  vowed,  were  always  to  be  sacrificed 
(ver.  9  sq.).  Of  course  that  which  was  already  due  to  God  (ver.  26)  could  not 
become  the  subject  of  a  vow,  neither  could  aught  connected  with  crime  or  infamy  ; 
comp.  Deut.  xxiii.  18  (4).  Anything  which  ]\&^  fallen  under  the  curse  could  only 
be  the  subject  of  the  D"}n.  This  word  signifies  "  a  being  cut  off,"  i.e.  from  the 
ordinary  connection  of  life  ;  for  to  be  subjected  to  the  Hherem,  the  vow  of 
extermination,  is  to  have  forfeited  existence.  The  Hherem  might  be  carried  into 
execution  either  in  consequence  of  a  Divine  command  or  of  a  special  kind  of  vow, 
the  vow  of  devotion;  comp.,  as  the  chief  passage  ou  this  subject.  Lev.  xxvii.  38  sq. 


i  134.]  '  ot  vows.  ^93 

Nothing  devoted  could  be  redeemed.  If  the  vow  related  to  anything  living,  it 
must  be  put  to  death  ;  lands  which  had  been  devoted  were  irredeemable  and 
unsalable,  the  priests  having  the  right  of  possession,  see  ver.  21.  Of  course  this 
vow,  the  Hherem,  might  not  be  arbitrarily  vowed,  otherwise  the  laws  of  impre- 
cation would  have  been  in  irreconcilable  opposition  to  other  laws.  Only  (as  may 
be  inferred  from  Ex.  xxii.  19,  Deut.  xiii.  16)  that  which  had  incurred  the  judg- 
ment due  to  idolatry  could  be  thus  placed  under  the  ban.  Hence  the  vow  of 
extermination  must  be  regarded  as  a  manifestation  of  zeal  for  JeTiovaTi's  honor. 

Among  vows  of  abstinence,  the  most  usual  was  that  oi  fasting,  which,  except  on 
the  Day  of  Atonement  (Lev.  xvi.  39,  xxiii.  27,  of  which  hereafter,  §  140),  was 
quite  voluntary,  and  therefore  often  appears  as  the  expression  of  penitence  (comp. 
e.g.  1  Sam.  vii.  6,  Joel  ii.  12,  etc.),  or  of  mourning  in  general.  It  is  not  till  after 
the  captivity  that  we  meet  with  various  other  annual  fasts  (of  which  hereafter). 
The  Pentateuch  makes  use  of  the  expression  ^p}_  riijj?,  to  afflict  the  soul  (compare, 
besides  the  already  quoted  passages.  Num.  xxx.  14),  for  fasting,  in  which  the 
special  significance  of  fasting  is  expressed  ;  some  indulgence,  otherwise  allowable, 
must  be  denied  to  the  natural  will,  to  testify  to  the  earnestness  of  its  penitence 
and  grief.  It  is  characteristic  of  the  moral  spirit  of  Mosaism,  that  it  strictly 
forbids  all  unnatural  austerities,  such  as  maiming  or  mutilating  the  limbs,  brand- 
ing, and  the  like  (Lev.  xix.  28  ;  Deut.  xiv.  1  sq.,  xxiii.  2  sq.),  for  it  is  said,  Deut. 
xiv.  1  sq.,  "  Thou  art  a  holy  people."  (Eunuchs  were  on  this  account  excluded 
from  the  congregation.) 

The  permission  of  vows  is  best  understood  in  its  subjective  aspect,  from  the 
educational  standj)oint  of  the  law.  To  be  bound  by  an  oath  might  support  the 
weakness  and  fickleness  of  the  natural  will,  and  give  energy  to  a  prayer  or  a 
resolution.  Still  a  vow  was  never  regarded  as  specially  meritorious.  "If  thou 
shalt  forbear  to  vow,  it  shall  be  no  sin  unto  thee,"  Deut.  xxiii.  22.  Of  course,  if 
a  vow  were  once  made,  its  performance  was  strictly  insisted  on,  Num.  xxx.  3, 
Deut.  xxiii.  22-24  (5)  ;  at  the  same  time,  however,  it  was  enacted  that  the  vow  of  a 
daughter  in  her  father's  house,  or  of  a  wife,  was  only  binding  if  her  father  or 
husband  confirmed  it  by  silence.  Inconsiderate  vows  are  expressly  reproved, 
Prov.  XX.  25,  and  Eccl.  v,  3-5.  The  heathen  view  of  a  vow,  as  forming  a  kind 
of  compact  with  the  Deity,  by  means  of  which  a  claim  upon  Divine  interposition 
was  acquired  on  the  part  of  him  who  makes  it,  may  indeed  be  found  in  the  form 
of  the  Old  Testament  vow  (if  thou  doest  so  to  me,  I  will  do  so  and  so)  from  Gen. 
xxviii.  20  sq.  onward  ;  but  the  notion  that  God  will  be  influenced  to  grant  a 
petition  by  an  external  performance  as  such,  is  opposed,  Ps.  Ixvi.  18,  by  the 
words,  "  If  I  regard  iniquity  in  my  heart,  the  Lord  will  not  hear  me,"  after  the 
fulfilment  of  vows  had  been  previously  spoken  of,  vers.  13-15  ;  while  in  Ps.  1. 
14,  also,  the  offering  of  thanJcsgiving  is  regSLrded  as  the  right  fulfilment  of  vows  (6). 

(1)  Comp.  my  article,  "  Geliibde  bei  den  Hebraern, "  in  Herzog  ;  also,  Riehm 
in  his  Hanclwdrter'buch. 

(2)  The  sacrifice  of  Jephthah's  daughter,  however,  is  not  to  be  included  here 
(comp.  §  159).  On  the  Nethinim,  whose  origin  was  undoubtedly  a  different  one, 
see  §  166. 

(3)  For  persons,  the  price  of  redemption  differed  according  to  age  and  sex  ;  in  the 
case  of  the  poor,  it  was  also  determined  according  to  property,  Lev.  xxvii.  1-8.  For 


••94  THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  135. 

uncleau  auitnals,  houses,  and  hereditary  land,  the  price  was  determined  by  tht 
priests  (iu  liereditary  lands,  according  to  the  probable  value  of  the  crops  until  the 
year  of  jubilee).  Upon  redemption,  however,  a  fifth  was  added  to  the  estimated 
value. 

(4)  By  the  price  of  a  dog,  Deut.  xxiii.  18  (which  was  not  to  be  brought  into 
the  sanctuary),  the  connection  undoubtedly  requires  us  to  understand  the  pay 
obtained  by  unnatural  jDractices,  by  the  D'^'lp,  ver.  17  (such  vows  occurring  in 
heathendom). 

(5)  The  passages  cited  are  usually  so  interpreted  as  to  make  a  vow  of  no  force 
till  uttered  by  the  Ujjs.  Certainly,  till  this  was  the  case,  it  could  not  come  under 
legal  control.  In  other  respects,  however,  we  are  not  justified  in  thus  pressing 
the  expression  ;  and  the  view  that  a  vow,  e.g.  like  Hannah's,  1  Sam.  i.  13,  was 
not  binding,  would  be  quite  opposed  to  the  moral  spirit  of  Mosaism. 

(G)  To  these  simple  enactments  of  the  law,  the  Mishna  has  added,  in  the  treat- 
ise Nedarim,  abundant  casuistry,  especially  with  respect  to  the  forms  in  which 
the  vow  might  be  pronounced,  and  the  degree  in  which  the  different  forms  were 
binding.  See  the  article  quoted,  p.  789,  where  also  the  New  Testament  passages, 
Matt.  XV.  5,  Mark  vii.  11,  are  considered.  On  the  notorious  Kol  Nidre,  see  the 
article  in  Herzog. 

§135. 

Nazaritism  (1). 

The  most  important  vow,  ?/  iieydlr}  evxr;,  as  Philo  calls  it  {de  ebriet.  §  1),  was 
that  of  Nazaritism.  The  name  I'lJ  from  IfJ,  to  separate  (2),  denotes  this  vow  as 
one  of  abstinence  (3).  The  Nazarite,  however,  is  one  icho  separates  himself  with  a  pos- 
itive purpose  of  consecration  to  Jehovah  (niri'S  "t'jnS,  Num.  vi.  2,  comp.  ver.  5). 
The  laic  of  Nazaritism,  Num.  vi.  1-21,  treats  only  of  a  temporary  and  evidently  a 
voluntary  assumption  of  this  vow,  and  not  of  a  perpetual  Nazaritism  like  that  of 
Samson,  Samuel,  and  John  the  Baptist,  imposed  on  them  from  birth  (4).  It  di- 
rects that  the  Nazarite  (or  Nazaritess)  shall,  during  the  time  of  his  consecration, 
in  the  first  place,  renounce  the  use  of  wine  and  every  other  intoxicating  drink,  also 
of  vinegar  prepared  from  such  drinks,  and  all  solutions  of  grape  juice,  and  even 
of  all  that  proceeds  from  the  vine,  down  to  the  kernels  and  husks  ;  secondly, 
that  he  shall  let  his  hair  grow,  so  that  no  razor  shall  come  upon  his  head  ; 
and  thirdly,  that  he  shall  not  make  himself  unclean  by  approaching  a  dead  body, 
not  even  that  of  his  father,  mother,  brother,  or  sister.  For  the  rest,  he  was  not 
commanded  to  withdraw  from  intercourse  with  his  fellow- men,  nor  does  the  law 
of  the  Nazarite  speak  of  an  obligation  to  celibacy  ;  for  which  reason  the  Roman 
Catholic  view,  which  sees  in  Nazaritism  a  type  of  monachism,  is  irrelevant.  The 
usual  and  at  the  same  time  shortest  duration  of  this  vow  of  Nazaritism  amounted, 
according  to  subsequent  enactment  {Mishna  Nasir,  i.  3,  comp.  Joseph.  Bell.  Jud.  ii. 
15.  1),  to  thirty  days.  Of  these  three  prohibitions,  the  two  first  appear,  Judg. 
xiii.  4  sq.,  as  binding  on  the  perpetual  Nazarite  ;  in  1  Sam.  i.  11  only  the  second, 
in  Luke  i.  15  only  the  first  is  mentioned.  If  a  Nazarite,  during  the  period  of  his 
consecration,  became  unclean  by  means  of  death  unexpectedly  occurring  near  him, 
he  was,  according  to  Num.  vi.  9,  to  shave  his  head  on  the  appointed  day  of  his 
purification,  viz.  the  seventh,  comp.  xix.  11  sq.  Then  on  the  eighth  day  he  was 
to  bring  two  turtles  or  two  young  pigeons,  one  for  a  sin-offering,  the  other  for  a 
burnt-offering,  for  the  priest  to  make  an  atonement  for  him.     After  this  he  was 


§    135.]  NAZARITISM.  295 

to  hallow  his  head  afresh,  and  without  reckoniug  tlic  former  days,  to  begin  a  new 
period  of  consecration,  by  bringing  a  himb  of  the  tirst  year  for  a  trespass-offering. 
When  the  period  of  his  vow  had  expired,  thoNazarite  was  to  offer  a  threefold  sacri- 
iice,  viz.  a  male  lamb  of  the  first  year  for  a  burnt-offering,  an  ewe-lamb  of  the 
first  year  for  a  sin-offering,  and  a  ram  for  a  peace-offering  ;  to  these  was  to  be 
added  a  basket  of  unleavened  cakes  of  fine  flour  mingled  with  oil,  and  wafers  anoint- 
ed with  oil,  together  with  a  food-and  a  drink-offering.  His  hair  was  then  shorn 
at  the  door  of  the  sanctuary  and  cast  into  the  fire  of  the  peace-offering.  Finally, 
the  priest  took  the  sodden  shoulder  of  the  ram,  together  with  a  cake  and  a  w^-ifer 
from  the  basket,  put  them  upon  the  hands  of  the  Nazarite,  and  waved  them  as  a 
wave-offering  before  the  Lord.  These  portions  were  allotted  to  the  priest  besides 
the  wave-breast  and  heave-shoulder,  which,  as  in  all  peace-offerings,  were  his  due. 
Nazaritism  (an  acquaintance  with  which  is  presupposed  in  Num.  vi.)  may  per- 
haps rest  upon  some  old  national  customs,  but  this  cannot  be  definitely  asserted. 
Its  derivation  by  Spencer  {De  leg.  hebr.  iii.  6.  1),  J.  D.  Michaelis  {Enticurf  der 
typischen  Oottesgelahrtlieit,  2d  ed.  p.  52),  and  others  from  Egypt,  is  founded  on 
the  myth  of  Osiris  (Diodor.  Sic.  i.  18)  (5),  as  is  also  the  notice  i.  83,  according  to 
which  the  Egyptians  were  accustomed  to  take  upon  themselves  a  similar  vow  dur- 
ing the  maladies  of  their  children.  The  custom,  however,  was  not  specifically 
Egyptian,  the  votive  offering  of  the  hair  being  found  among  other  ancient  nations, 
especially  before  the  undertaking  of  a  dangerous  journey  (6).  Whatever  may  have 
been  the  origin  of  Nazaritism,  its  signification  can  only  be  ascertained  from  the 
Old  Testament  itself.  Thus  much  is  certain  from  Num.  vi.,  that  Nazaritism  con- 
templated a  consecration  of  the  whole  heing.  Of  what  character,  then,  was  this 
consecration  ?  According  to  Vilmar,  the  first  and  second  requirements,  the  avoid- 
ing of  wine — the  culture  of  the  vine  being  a  symbol  of  civilization — and  the 
omission  of  cutting  the  hair,  denote  the  separation  of  the  Nazarite  from  that  pro- 
fane civilization  which  endangers  man's  original  relation  to  Jehovah.  It  is, 
however,  far  more  likely,  as  Philo  (comp.  de  vict.  §  13)  and  Maimonides  (More 
Nebochim,  iii.  48)  have  already  inferred,  that  they  point  to  the  relation  between  the 
Nazarite  vow  and  the  commands  imposed  upon  the  priesthood.  The  first  requirement 
corresponds  with  the  prohibition  (Lev.  x.  9  sq.)  of  the  use  of  wine  to  priests 
during  the  time  of  their  administration,  the  third  coincides  exactly  wuth  the  in- 
junction to  the  high  priest  (Lev.  xxi.  11  j  not  to  defile  himself  with  the  corpse  of 
even  his  nearest  relative.  ITie  idea  of  the  priestly  life,  with  its  purity  and  remoteness 
from  everything  affected  by  death  or  corruption,  its  self-dedication  to  God,  which 
sets  aside  even  the  nearest  earthly  ties,  is  the  fundamental  idea  of  Nazaritism. 
It  is  true  that  Nazaritism,  as  such,  involved  no  special  service  of  the  sanctuary  : 
the  destination  of  her  hoped-for  son  to  such  service  by  Samuel's  mother  was  in 
addition  to  the  Nazarite  vow  (7).  Nazaritism,  as  already  said,  involved  no  priestly 
service,  but  only  a  voluntary  appropriation  of  the  idea  of  the  priestly  mode  of  life, 
— of  what  was  imposed  upon  the  priest  in  virtue  of  his  hereditary  vocation,  viz. 
to  regard  himself  as  vowed  to  God,  and  consequently  to  renounce  all  that  was 
opposed  to  this  self-surrender.  It  must  be  granted  that  a  special  delight  in 
prayer,  and  particularly  in  intercession,  might  arise,  as  Ewald  conjectures  (see 
Hist,  of  the  People  of  Israel,  ii.  p.  563),  among  persons  thus  vowed  to  God,  from 
their  deep  and  energetic  belief  that  they  were  the  Lord's  special  possession  ;  but 


296   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  135. 

we  cannot,  with  Schioring,  appeal  in  support  of  this  notion  to  Samuel,  whose 
spirit  of  prayer  is  connected  rather  with  his  position  and  endowments  as  a 
prophet  than  with  his  perpetual  Nazaritism.  We  next  proceed  to  inquire  into 
the  meaning  of  the  second  requirement,  viz.  that  of  letting  the  hair  grow.  According 
to  Num.  vi.,  his  hair  formed  the  Nazarite's  ornament  of  consecration,  being,  vers. 
7,  9,  the  1.TJ  of  his  God  upon  his  head,  and  thus  bearing  the  same  name  as  the 
high  priest's  diadem,  Ex.  xxix.  6,  and  the  anointing  oil  upon  his  head,  Lev.  xxi. 
10.  The  consecration  of  the  Nazarite  culminating  in  the  free  growth  of  the  hair 
(hence  the  expression 'l!i'*^'l~riS^  '^1p,  Num.  vi.  11,  comp.  ver.  9),  it  is  in  this  par- 
ticular that  we  should  expect  to  find  the  fullest  impression  of  the  import  of 
Nazaritism.  It  does  not  accord  with  such  an  expectation  to  say,  that  the  cutting 
of  the  hair  being  required  by  decorum,  the  letting  it  grow  has  only  the  negative 
meaning  of  professing  to  renounce  the  world  and  avoid  all  appearance  of  vanity 
and  self -pleasing  (8).  Lev.  xxv.  5,  11,  where  the  vines,  which  grew  unpruned  and 
were  not  to  be  gathered  during  the  sabbatical  year  and  the  year  of  jubilee,  are 
called  Nazarites,  affords  a  clue  to  its  true  meaning.  The  consecration  of  the 
vine  was  effected  by  allowing  its  whole  productive  powers  free  scope  to  develop 
and  by  withdrawing  its  products  from  profane  use.  In  like  manner  was  the  hair 
of  the  Nazarite  a  symbol  of  strength  and  vitality  ;  and  the  circumstance  of  its  re- 
maining inviolate  during  the  whole  period  of  his  consecration,  denoted  that  the 
person  of  the  Nazarite  was  God's  possession,  and  his  strength  dedicated  to  His 
service,  while  its  growth  formed  a  sacred  ornament,  like  the  diadem  by  which 
the  high  priest  was  recognized  as  consecrated  to  God.  Thus  the  command  to  let 
the  hair  grow  forms  the  positive  side  to  the  command  to  avoid  all  contact  with  a 
dead  body  (comp.  Bahr,  SymboWk,  1st  ed.  ii.  p.  433).  Even  the  heathen  offerings 
of  the  hair  arose  from  the  notion  that  the  hair  is  the  symbol  of  vital  power  (the 
hair  of  the  beard  being  the  token  of  manhood)  (9).  In  the  case  of  Samson,  the  hair 
was  not  merely  the  symbol  but  also  the  vehicle  of  that  abundance  of  strength  by 
which  he  was  fitted  to  become  the  deliverer  of  his  fellow-countrymen  (10).,  On 
the  ceremony  by  which  the  Nazarite  was  released  from  his  vow  of  consecration, 
we  need  only  remark  that  of  the  three  sacrifices  enjoined,  viz.  the  burnt-offering, 
which  formed  the  foundation  of  the  whole  sacrificial  act,  the  sin-offering,  appointed 
for  the  atonement  of  any  slight  transgressions  which  might  have  occurred,  and 
the  peace-offering,  the  last  was  naturally  the  chief,  as  is  manifest  even  by  its  re- 
quirement of  an  animal  of  higher  grade.  Two  circumstances  were  peculiar  to  this 
offering, — first,  that  the  Nazarite  had  to  cast  his  shorn-off  hair  into  the  sacrificial 
fire,  for,  according  to  the  meaning  of  the  law,  this  and  not  the  fire  for  boiling  is 
certainly  intended  ;  and,  secondly,  that  another  portion  of  the  sacrifice  besides 
what  was  usual  was  to  be  waved.  By  the  first  act  the  Nazarite's  ornament  of  con- 
secration was  withdrawn  from  all  profanation,  and  surrendered  as  it  were  to  Him 
in  whose  honor  it  had  been  worn,  this  being,  as  in  the  case  of  those  portions  of 
the  sacrifice  which  might  not  be  eaten,  effected  by  its  consumption  in  the  sacri- 
ficial flame.  By  the  second,  it  was  intimated  that  the  fellowship  at  table  with 
the  Lord  which  was  involved  in  the  peace-offering,  took  place  on  this  occasion  in 
an  enhanced  degree.  From  the  significance  of  Nazaritism,  as  thus  explained,  it 
i3  easy  to  perceive  why  the  raising  up  of  Nazarites  as  well  as  prophets  should  be 
regarded,  Amos  ii.  11,  as  a  special  manifestation  of  Divine  favor  (11). 


§   135.]  NAZARITISM.  297 

(l)Comp.  my  article  iVasaniism  in  Herzog's  Real-Encylcl.  x.  p.  205  sq.,  and  Ed. 
Vilmar's  subsequent  treatise,  "  Die  symbolische  Bedeutung  des  Naziriiergelubdes," 
Stud.  u.  Kritih.  1864,  p.  438  sq.  [also  Riehm's  art.  in  hiiT Ilandwdrterbuch]. 

(2)  ~ITJ  ^Iph.  to  separate  from,  to  refrain  from ;  Uiph.  to  iseparate  out  of,  to 
withdraw,  is  akin  to  "nj,  to  vow,  because  a  vowed  gift  is  separated. 

(3)  As  the  Rabbins  also  explain  n^^'H  by  Hty'lD  ;  see  the  passages  in  Carpzov, 
App.  ant.  s.  cod.  p.  151  sq.  The  explanation  of  the  name,  still  retained  by 
Saalschiitz  (Mas.  Recht,  p.  158),  "  the  crowned,"  viz.  with  thick  hair,  is  incorrect'; 
tne  other  meaning  also  "  ilhistrious,"  under  wliich  "''fJ  occurs,  Gen.  xlix.  26, 
Deut.  xxxiii.  16,  Lam.  iv.  7,  is  only  so  far  connected  with  "^0,  crown,  as  both 
significations  arise  from  the  farther  notion  of  distinction  which  is  combined  witli 
the  primary  import  of  "tlJ. 

(4)  Perpetual  Nazarites  were  called  dVi^'  n'j^  ;  others,  on  the  contrary,  D'p;;  ^'TJ 
or  ^li'p  |0?  "y]}.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  the  mother  of  Samson  was,  ac- 
cording to  Judg.  xiii.  4,  to  refrain  from  wine  and  intoxicating  drinks,  and  from 
unclean  meats,  during  the  period  of  pregnancy,  and  that  the  consecration  of  John 
the  Baptist  began  also  from  his  mother's  womb  (Luke  i.  15). 

(5)  On  his  journey  to  Ethiopia,  Osiris  vowed  to  let  his  hair  grow  till  Ms  return 
to  Egypt. 

(6)  Compare  e.g.  the  vow  of  Achilles  in  the  Iliad,  xxiii.  141  sq.  On  the  other 
hand,  Vatke's  objection  against  the  Egyptian  origin  of  Nazaritism,  viz.  that  the 
prohibition  of  wine  must  first  have  originated  in  Canaan  as  a  land  of  vines,  is  quite 
untenable,  the  scriptural  statements  which  ascribe  the  cultivation  of  tlie  vine  to 
ancient  Egypt  being  fully  corroborated  by  ancient  monuments.  (See  Hengsten- 
berg,  The  Boohs  of  Moses  and  EgyjA.) 

(7)  It  cannot  be  shown  that  the  women  who  served  the  sanctuary  (Ex.  xxxviii. 
8  ;  1  Sam.  ii.  23,  comp.  §  134)  were  Nazarites. 

(8)  Comp.  Hengstenberg,  id.  p.  203,  and  Baur,  zu  Am.  ii.  11.  A  similar  view  is 
that  of  R.  Bechai  (see  Carpzov,  App.  p.  153),  w-ho  regards  the  long  hair  of  the 
Nazarite  as  a  token  of  mourning  (so  also  J.  D.  Michaelis,  id.  127),  and  of  Vilmar 
cited  above.  The  cutting  off  the  hair  of  the  cleansed  leper,  in  consequence  of 
which  he  was  restored  to  intercourse  with  other  men,  cannot  be  brought  forward 
in  illustration  of  Num.  vi.  18. 

(9)  On  the  offering  up  of  the  hair,  e.g.  by  Athenian  youths,  see  Plutarch,  Thes. 
cap.  5  ;  comp.  the  Troezene  custom,  Lucian,  de  Dea  Syria,  cap.  60. 

(10)  The  sevenfold  number  of  the  locks  of  hair,  Judg.  xvi.  13,  represents  the 
hair  of  one  vowed  to  God  as  a  token  of  a  covenant,  as  in  the  wider  sense  it  really 
was.  The  very  example  of  Samson  shows,  however,  that  this  symbol  is  not  to  be 
regarded  exclusively  (as  by  Bahr,  id.  p.  432)  in  an  ethical  sense  as  indicating 
holiness  (the  bloom  of  life  consecrated  to  God),  though  the  ethical  meaning  of 
the  entire  surrender  of  vital  energy  to  the  service  of  God  is  directly  connected 
with  it.  Bsiumgarten  (Komme'ntarzulv'um.  vi.  and  //i's^or// of  the  Apostles,  ii.  1,  p. 
307)  has  brought  forward  another  meaning.  Comparing  1  Cor.  xi.  3-16  he  finds  in 
long  hair  a  token  of  subjection  and  subordination,  which  notion  offers  no  natural 
explanation  of  the  above  facts.  Vitringa,  on  the  other  hand  (Ohserv.  sacr.  ed.  1723, 
i.  p.  70),  referring  to  Deut.  xxxii.  42,  Ps.  Ixviii.  22,  views  the  longhair  of  tyrants 
as  the  symbolum  Jihertatiset  naturm  indomitce,  and  then  giving  a  spiritual  turn  to  the 
figure  regards  Nazaritism  as  the  syntiohim  statits  perfedcB  libertaiis  Jilioruin  Dei 
(comp.  his  treatise,  typus  Simsonis  mystice  expositus,  in  tlie  6th  Book  of  the  Ohserv. 
sacr.  p.  507  sq.).  On  the  signification  of  the  act  of  sacrifice  which  was  to  take 
place  in  case  of  an  infringement  of  the  conditions  of  Nazaritism,  see  §137. 

(11)  In  our  description  of  the  period  of  the  judges,  we  shall  return  once  more  to 
the  subject  of  Nazaritism.  In  the  later  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  Nazaritism 
is  never  mentioned,  though  the  Sechabites,  who,  according  to  Jer.  xxxv.  8,  also 
avoided  the  use  of  wine,  may  be  regarded  as  a  cognate  phenomenon.  The  legal- 
ity of  the  post-Babylonian  age  led  also  to  a  revival  of  Nazaritism.  See  on  this 
subject,  and  on  those  passages  in  Acts  which  are  said  to  refer  to  a  Nazarite  vow 


298   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.     [§  136. 

on  the  part  of  St.  Paul,  and  on  certain  modern  decisions  respecting  it,  the  above- 
cited  article,  p.  209  sq. 

APPENDIX  :    THE    THEOCRATIC    TAXEB. 

§  136. 

The  fundamental  idea  of  the  theocratic  taxes  was  that  the  people  and  all 
their  possessions,  especially  the  Holy  Land,  belonged  to  the  Lord.  The  acknowl- 
edgment of  this  Divine  title  was  to  be  made  on  the  part  of  the  people  by  the 
surrender  to  Jehovah  of  a  portion  of  its  produce,  as  a  substitute  for,  and  conse- 
cration of,  the  whole. 

1.  Hence  the  {male)  first-horn,  loth  of  man  and  least,  were  to  be  offered  ;  the 
former  were,  however,  to  be  redeemed  (Ex.  xiii.  IB  ;  Num.  xviii.  15  sq.  ;  see 
§  105).  Of  unclean  animals,  the  first-born  were  to  be  redeemed  at  the  valuation 
of  the  priest,  with  the  addition  of  a  fifth  of  the  worth,  xviii.  15,  Lev.  xxviii.  26 
sq.  ;  while  of  clean  animals,  on  the  contrary,  the  first-born,  if  without  blemish, 
were  to  be  sacrificed  within  a  year  from  the  eighth  day  after  birth.  Of  this  sacri- 
fice, as  of  the  peace-offering,  the  breast  and  right  shoulder  was  allotted  to  the 
priest  ;  the  rest  was  used  for  a  sacrificial  repast  (Num.  xviii.  17  sq.  ;  Deut.  xii.  17 
sq.  ;  XV.  19  sq.)  (1).  If  the  animal,  however,  had  any  blemish,  the  owner  was  to 
eat  it  at  home  (Deut.  xv.  21  sq.). 

2.  The  first-fruits  of  all  the  produce  of  agriculture  (Ex.  xxiii.  19;  Num.  xviii.  9 
12  sq.  ;  Deut.  xxvi.  2  sq.),  and,  according  to  Deut.  xviii.  4,  of  the  fleece  of  the 
sheep,  were  also  to  be  offered,  the  quantity  being  in  the  latter  case  left  to  the 
liberality  of  the  offerer.  The  offering  of  the  sheaf  of  first-ripe  corn  at  the  Pass- 
over, and  of  the  loaves  of  first-fruits  at  Pentecost,  by  which  gratitude  for  the 
newly  bestowed  harvest  was  expressed,  and  the  food  of  the  new  year  hallowed, 
referred  to  the  whole  nation.  Food  in  general,  which  had  not  been  sanctified  by 
the  offering  up  of  first-fruits,  was  unclean  food  for  an  Israelite  (Hos.  ix.  3)  (2). 
How  the  Israelite  was  to  praise  God  at  this  offering  for  having  redeemed  His 
people  from  Egypt,  and  given  them  possession  of  the  Holy  Land,  may  be  seen 
especially  in  the  beautiful  ritual  prescribed,  Deut.  xxvri.  1  sq.,  for  the  offering 
of  the  first-fruits. 

3.  As  the  first-fruits  represent  the  blessing  to  be  received,  the  tenth  was,  properly 
speaking,  the  fee  which  the  Israelite  had  to  render  to  Jehovah,  as  Lord  of  the  soil, 
for  the  produce  of  the  land.  This  tenth  of  the  fruits,  whether  of  field  or  tree, 
Lev.  xxvii.  30-33,  was  assigned  to  the  Levites,  Num.  xvii.  21-24,  as  a  compen- 
sation for  their  deprivation  of  an  inheritance  among  the  tribes.  Of  this  tenth  the 
Levites  were  to  pay  a  tenth,  "li^'iiSn-p  "^^yo  (ver.  26),  to  the  priests.  It  is  only  this 
tenth  of  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  which  is  to  be  strictly  regarded  in 
the  light  of  a  tax.  The  Deuteronomic  tenth  is  of  a  another  character  ;  for  Deut. 
xiv.  22-27,  comp.  xii.  6  sq.,  enjoins  that  the  tenth  of  corn,  wine,  and  oil,  shall  be 
brought  either  in  kind,  or  if  the  distance  be  too  far,  in  money,  to  the  sanctuary, 
and  there  used  for  a  feast  of  rejoicing.  Every  third  year,  however,  the  tenth  was 
to  be  left  at  home,  and  a  great  feast  of  tithes  made,  to  whicli  the  L<^vites,  strangers, 
widows,  and  orphans  of  the  place  were  to  be  invited.  It  is  this  tenth  of  the  third 
year  that  is  referred  to  in  Amos  iv.  4  (?>).    That  the  tithe  of  the  middle  books  and 


§    136.]  THE   THEOCRATIC    TAXES.  299 

that  of  Deuteronomy  existed  contemporaneoxisly ,  cannot  be  denied  in  the  presence 
of  Jewish  tradition  given  in  LXX  of  Deut.  xxvi.  13  ;  Tobit  i.  7  sq.  ;  Joscphus, 
Antiq.  iv.  8.  §  8  and  33  (4).  This  latter  tithe  was,  as  above  remarked,  no  tax 
in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word,  but,  by  the  necessity  it  involved  of  laying  by  a 
certain  portion  of  the  income,  was  a  means  of  meeting  the  expense  of  the  pilgrim- 
ages to  the  sanctuary,  and  of  promoting  the  exercise  of  benevolence  (5).  That  the 
rendering  of  these  tithes  had  also  the  significance  of  a  sacrifice  of  prayer,  is  shown 
by  the  prayer  which,  according  to  Deut.  xxvi.  13  sq.,  was  to  be  uttered  after  the 
tithing  in  the  third  year  (6). 

4.  The  tax  imposed  for  the  service  of  the  sanctuary  (already  mentioned,  §  93, 
Ex.  XXX.  13  sq.,  according  to  which  every  Israelite  when  numbered  (lest  a  plague 
should  fall  upon  the  people  at  their  numbering)  was  to  furnish  half  a  shekel  (after 
the  shekel  of  the  sanctuary,  and  therefore  of  full  weight)  as  a  "133,  the  poor  as 
well  as  the  rich,  shows  that  we  have  here  to  deal  not  with  a  property-tax,  but  a 
personal  atonement,  or  more  strictly  a  covering.  (Hence  this  tribute  falls  rather 
under  the  category  of  the  sin-offering.)  The  money  thus  raised  was,  according  to 
Ex.  xxxviii.  35  sq.,  applied  to  the  building  of  the  sanctuary.  This  passage  seems 
to  represent  it  as  paid  but  once,  though  the  idea  on  which  this  law  was  founded 
was  one  which  might  at  all  times  find  its  application  ;  still  it  was  by  no  means  an 
annual  impost.  No  mention  is  subsequently  made  of  it  till  the  restoration  of  the 
temple  is  spoken  of  after  the  fall  of  Athaliab,  3  Chron.  xxiv.  6-11  (comp.  3  Kings 
xii.  5,  and  Keil  inloco).  In  Neh.  x.  33  we  first  meet  with  a  yearly  contribution  of 
a  third  of  a  shekel  for  the  service  of  the  sanctuary,  and  that  without  reference  to 
the  Mosaic  enactment.  In  the  times  of  Christ  the  half  shekel  reappears  (Matt. 
xvii.  34)  as  the  general  Jewish  temple-tax. 

(1)  On  the  relation  of  the  passages  in  Deuteronomy  [in  which  the  offerer  is 
required  to  eat  the  firstlings  at  the  sanctuary]  to  those  in  Numbers  [in  which  it 
is  enacted  that  the  flesh  shall  belong  to  the  j)riests,  like  the  wave  bread  and  thf> 
shoulder],  seethe  article  Priesterthums  in'ReT7,og''s Eeal-EncyHop.  and  what  is  said 
by  Riehm  (Die  Oesetzgehing  Mosis  im  Lande  3Ioai,  p.  43  sq.)  in  opposing  Hengs- 
tenberg  {Genuineness,  ii.  p.  333  sq.) 

(3)  Hos.  ix.  3  regards  the  food  of  the  people  in  captivity  as  unclean,  because 
those  offerings  by  which  it  would  have  been  sanctified  could  not  be  made  in  a 
heathen  land. 

(3)  In  Amosiv.  4,  the  prophet,  reproving  the  hypocritical  piety  of  Israel,  says  : 
"Bring  your  tithes  every  third  day." 
(4)  The  last-named  passages  reckon  three  tithes,  the  tithe  of  Deuteronomy 
being  regarded  as  the  second.  That  the  command  in  Deuteronomy  places  this 
feast  of  tithes,  wliich  was  to  be  held  every  third  year,  in  the  place  of  the  yearly 
tithe,  as  Riehm  {Die  Oesetzgelnmg  Mosis  im  Lande  3foai,  p.  45  sq.)  supposes,  is 
a  groundless  hypothesis.  It  could  hardly  be  conceived  that  the  lawgiver,  by 
insuring  to  the  Levites  an  opportunity  of  satisfying  their  appetite  once  in  three 
years,  could  have  thought  he  had  thus  alleviated  their  necessitous  condition  "  as 
far  as  was  possible." 

(5)  [The  manner  in  which  the  new  criticism  employs  tlie  regulations  respecting 
the  income  of  the  ecclesiastical  order,  for  the  support  of  its  view  of  the  develop- 
ment of  the  history  of  Israel,  may  be  seen  in  Wellhausen,  i.  p.  15G  sqq.  He  would 
have  it  that  the  priests  wlio  originally,  and  even  in  Deuteronomy,  were  restricted 
to  only  a  part  of  the  offerings,  continually  rose  in  their  demands,  until  at  last  the 
taxes  reached  an  incredible  amount ;  that  the  law  in  Num.  xviii.  15  sqq.,  that  all 
firstlings,  of  man  and  beast  belonged  to  the  priests,  is  intelligible  only  as  the  last 


300   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  137. 

phase  of  this  process,  partly  because  the  tax  in  comparison  with  the  offering  is 
something  derived,  and  partly  because  this  law  presupposes  a  development  of 
priestly  power  ;  while  in  the  most  unheard-of  manner,  a  novel  requirement  of 
later  origin  is  found  in  Lev.  xxvii.  33,  that  the  priests  should  have  along  with  the 
first-born,  the  tenth  part  also  of  the  herd  and  the  flock,  although  in  the  nature  of 
the  case  the  tithe  pertains  only  to  objects  which  admit  of  settled  measurement  (as 
corn,  wine,  and  oil),  and  in  this  form  is  required  in  Num.  xviii.  21  sqq.  In  an- 
swer to  this,  see  Dillmann,  p.  637  sqq.,  and  Bredenkamp,  p.  196  sqq.  Dillmann 
finds  that  the  cattle  tithe  in  Leviticus  must  be  very  ancient,  and  that  it  appears 
all  the  more  natural,  the  nearer  it  comes  to  the  old  shepherd  life  of  the  tribes,  and 
that  the  tenth  vowed  by  Jacob,  Gen.  xxviii,  22  must  be  understood  of  a  tenth  of 
the  herd,  since  herds  were  his  chief  possessions.  In  respect  to  the  relation  of 
the  tithes  in  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  and  in  Deuteronomy,  Dillmann 
agrees  with  Wellhausen  so  far  as  this,  viz.  that  originally  the  one  was  introduced 
in  flace  of  the  other,  and  that  both  together  were  not  required  till  a  later  period  ; 
but  DiUmann  regards  those  in  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  as  having  the 
priority.  On  the  other  hand,  Bredenkamp  defends  the  view  taken  in  the  text, 
that  the  Deuteronomic  tithe  was  required  along  icith  the  other,  on  the  ground 
which  he  emphasizes,  that  the  Deuteronomic  tithe  alone  was  not  sufficient  for  the 
support  of  the  ecclesiastical  order,  and  that  therefore  it  might  be  added  to  that  of 
the  middle  books,  but  could  not  have  been  the  only  provision  for  the  Levites,  or 
have  been  substituted  for  that  in  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch.  Well- 
hausen's  position  in  regard  to  the  immense  amount  of  priestly  dues  is  connected 
with  the  fact  that  he  denies  the  historical  existence  of  the  ecclesiastical  tribe  of 
Levi,  and  in  place  of  it  substitutes  an  order  of  Levites,  who  were  originally  few  in 
number  (comp.  §  92,  note  2).  What  was  provided  for  the  support  of  a  whole  tribe, 
which  had  no  inheritance  in  Israel,  was  obviously  not  too  much.  That  the  tax 
in  comparison  with  the  offerings  was  something  derived,  may  be  correct,  but  it  is 
no  argument  against  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  law  of  tithes.  Moreover,  the  origin 
of  such  a  law  from  the  authority  of  Moses  is  quite  as  intelligible  as  from  the 
assumed  development  of  priestly  power.] 

(6)  Deut.  xxvi.  13  :  "I  have  brought  away  the  hallowed  things  out  of  mine 
house,  and  also  have  given  them  unto  the  Levite,  and  unto  the  stranger,  to  the 
fatherless,  and  to  the  widow.  .  .  ;  ver.  15  :  Look  down  then  from  Thy  holy  habi- 
tation, from  heaven,  and  bless  Thy  people  Israel,  and  the  land  which  Thou  hast 
given  us,  as  Thou  swarest  unto  our  fathers,  a  land  that  floweth  with  milk  and 
honey." 

(c)    THE    ATONING    SACRIFICE. 

§  137. 

1.   The  Difference  "between  the  Trespass-offering  and  the  Sin-offering  with  Respect  to 

the  End  in  View. 

The  third  and  fourth  kinds  of  sacrifice,  the  sin-offering  (HX^n)  and  the  trespass- 
offering  (p'^^),  have  the  common  end  of  abolishing  an  intei'ruption  of  the  covenant  rela- 
tion caused  by  some  transgression.  This  transgression  is  indeed  designated  in  both 
cases,  with  the  exception  of  certain  cases  in  the  trespass-offering,  as  one  commit- 
ted in  error^  DJJK'S,  i.e.  in  ignorance  (see  with  respect  to  the  sin-offering,  Lev.  iv.  2, 
13,  32,  27  ;  Num.  xv.  27  sq.  ;  to  the  trespass-offering,  Lev.  v.  15,  18).  Undoubt- 
edly this  expression  generally  refers  to  iinintentionnl  offences  (comp.  in  elucida- 
tion. Lev.  iv.  13,  V.  3  sq.,  17,  where  i'T  N7I,  "and  lie  knew  it  not,''  relates  not  to 
ignorance  of  the  command,  but  to  unconsciousness  and  unpremeditatedness  in  the 
offence  ;  see  also  how  the  ^JJIVS  of  Num.  xxxv.  11  is  explained  in  Deut.  iv.  42  by 


§    137.]  THE    ATONING    SACRIFICE.  301 

J^i?"!"''?^?),  still  the  expression  includes  more  than  mere  inadvertence,  and  extends 
to  errors  of  injirmity,  of  rashnens,  we  might  say  of  levity.  Its  opposite  is  the  sin 
i^PT  ^'3,  "with  an  uplifted  hand,"  i.e.  rebelliously,  Num.  xv.  30,  the  sin  com- 
mitted defiantly,  deliberately,  the  wilful  transgression  of  the  Divine  command- 
ments. For  the  latter  there  is  from  the  legal  standpoint  no  sacrifice,  but  "  that 
soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people." 

What  then  is  the  distinction  as  to  intention  between  the  tres'pass-and  the  sin-offer- 
ings? This  difficult  question  has  been  variously  answered,  but  none  of  the  an- 
swers hitherto  given  have  been  thoroughly  applicable.  It  has  been  said,  e.g., 
that  the  sin-offering  related  to  sins  of  commission,  the  trespass-offering  to  sins  of 
omission  ;  or  that  the  sin-offering  served  to  avert  punishment,  the  trespass- 
offering  to  appease  the  conscience  ;  or  that  the  sin-offering  concerned  those  sins 
which  had  come  to  the  knowledge  of  others,  the  trespass-offering  such  as  the 
transgressor  was  himself  conscious  of,  without  being  convicted  by  others  (2). 
An  advance  toward  the  solution  of  this  question  has  been  made  chiefly  by  the 
treatises  of  Riehm  ("tjber  das  Schuldopfer, "  Studien  u.  Krit.  1854,  i.  p.  93  sq.) 
and  Rinck  ("  Uber  das  Schuldopfer,"  id.  1855,  ii.  p.  369  sq.),  who  were  preced- 
ed by  Kurtz,  though  his  view  had  not  exactly  met  the  difficulty.  This  solution  is 
facilitated  when  it  is  noticed  that  the  passage  Lev.  v.  1-13,  which  many  modern 
writers  {e.g.  Bahr  and  Hofmann)  still  refer  to  the  trespass-offering,  treats,  on  the 
contrary,  of  the  sin-offering  [so  e.g.  Keil,  Knobel,  Dillmann],  as  the  introduc- 
tory formula  (which  is  wanting  ver.  1),  "And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses," 
ver.  14,  shows  that  a  new  section  begins  here,  and  that  1-13  does  not  belong 
to  what  follows.  The  ajopearance  of  a  reference  to  the  trespass-offering  in  1-13 
disappears  when  it  is  perceived  that  the  expressions  ^V^  (to  trespass)  and  DtVX 
(trespass)  must  in  this  section  be  taken  in  their  more  general  sense,  in  which  also 
a  trespass  may  be  spoken  of  in  the  case  of  the  sin-offering.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is 
clear,  from  vers.  6,  7  (where  the  juxtaposition  of  n^^^HT  and  "^J^l  should  be  ob- 
served), 9,  and  11  sq.,  that  the  riXDH,  the  sin-offering,  is  spoken  of,  as  is  shown 
by  the  selection  of  sacrificial  animals,  ver.  6,  and  by  the  substitution  of  doves, 
ver.  7  sq.,  which  was  only  allowed  in  the  sin-offering,  comp.  xiv.  21  sq. — We  now 
proceed  to  the  three  passages  on  the  trespass-offering  in  which  its  import  most 
clearly  appears,  viz.  Lev.  v.  14-16,  to  which  belong  also  vers.  17-19,  Lev.  vi.  1- 
6,  and  Num.  v.  5-10.  The  first  of  these  laws  enacts  that  whoever  has  ^JJl^a 
defrauded  in  holy  things,  i.e.  things  pertaining  to  tlie  priestly  revenues,  shall 
bring  a  ram,  according  to  the  estimation  of  the  priest,  to  the  Lord,  and  at  the 
same  time  make  amends  for  his  fraud  by  the  addition  of  a  fifth.  A  more  general 
application  to  similar  cases  (for  which  the  formula  which  had  been  used,  iv.  27, 
of  the  sin-offering  is  chosen)  (3)  is  then  given  to  this  special  law,  as  Riehm  right- 
ly suggests  (id.  p.  99  sq.),  by  the  addition,  vers.  17-19,  which  has  offered  much 
difficulty  from  its  similarity  to  iv.  27.  The  second  commands  that  whoever  has 
committed  any  breach  of  trust,  has  defrauded  or  in  any  way  taken  advantage  of 
his  neighbor,  or  appropriated  that  which  he  found,  and  also  denied  such  in- 
jury by  oath,  shall  make  amends  by  restoration,  with  the  addition  of  a  fifth,  and 
shall  also  bring  a  ram,  according  to  priestly  estimation,  for  a  trespass-offering. 
The  cases  in  this  category  do  not,  as  Riehm  justly  asserts  {idem,  p.  103  sq.),  fall 


302  THE  COVEN-ANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  137. 

under  the  point  of  view  of  the  HJJv,  as  many  have  insisted,  nor  is  the  expression 
used  here  ;  their  mild  treatment  is  explained  by  the  remark  in  the  appendix  to 
§  113.  The  third  passage  expresses  more  briefly  the  command  of  the  second,  em- 
phatically insists  on  confession,  and  finally  enacts,  also,  that  if  the  individual 
against  whom  the  trespass  was  committed  has  no  Goel,  the  compensation  money 
shall,  together  with  the  ram  to  be  offered,  devolve  to  the  Lord,  i.e.  be  paid  to 
the  priest. 

What  is  common  to  all  three  passages,  then,  is  as  follows  : — The  trespass- 
offering  presupposes  a  iVJP,  i.e.  an  act  of  defrauding,  which,  though  chiefly  an 
infraction  of  a  neighior''s  rights  in  the  matter  of  property,  is  also,  according  to  the 
views  of  Mosaism,  an  infraction  of  Ood''s  rights  in  respect  to  law.  Hence,  besides 
material  reparation,  increased  by  a  fifth  of  the  value,  for  the  offence  which  is  called 
in  Num.  v.  7  iOK^X-nX  TC'n,  the  transgressor  had  also  to  make  satisfaction  to 
God  by  means  of  the  trespass-offering.  That  satisfaction  on  the  part  of  man  is 
the  essential  element  in  the  notion  of  the  ^'^^,  is  shown  especially  by  1  Sam.  vi. 
3  sq.  (4).  From  this  point  of  view  the  other  cases,  in  which  a  trespass-offering 
was  to  be  brought,  are  to  be  explained,  e.g.  the  law  Lev.  xix.  20-32,  uuchastity 
with  the  slave  of  another  being  an  infraction  of  the  right  of  property  (5).  The 
trespass-offerings,  too,  which  were  prescribed  for  the  cleansing  of  the  leper,  Lev. 
xiv.  11  sq.,  and  the  Nasarite  whose  vow  had  been  broken,  Num.  vi.  13,  may  be 
understood  from  the  point  of  view  described.  It  is  evident  that  in  both  cases  the 
trespass-offering  effects  a  restitutio  in  integrum,  a  restoration  to  the  privileges  of 
the  theocratic  citizen.  But  how,  we  may  ask,  is  this  effected  ?  According  to 
Riehm,  who  seems  to  have  the  right  idea,  the  trespass-offering  is  here  also  to  be 
regarded  as  a  kind  of  mulcta,  a  restitutionary  payment  for  an  infraction  of  law. 
The  leper,  so  long  as  he  was  excluded  from  the  congregation,  did  not  offer  to 
God  the  reverence  that  was  due  to  Him, — he,  as  it  were,  diminished  it.  The 
Nazarite,  by  the  intermission  of  his  vow,  deprived  God  of  the  time  dedicated  to 
Him,  and  delayed  for  so  much  longer  the  payment  of  his  vow  (6).  Keil,  on  the 
other  hand,  after  Rinck's  example  {idevi,  p.  374),  regards  the  trespass-offerings 
of  the  leper  and  the  Nazarite  in  the  light  of  a  compensation  for  restoration  to  the 
former  state  of  consecration,  thus  giving  them  also  the  significance  of  a  sacrifice 
of  prayer  (an  extension  of  the  trespass-offering  of  which  there  is  no  other  example) 
(7).— Satisfaction  being  thus  rendered  in  the  trespass-offering  for  a  committed  S;:p, 
it  served  indeed  at  the  same  time  as  a  covering  or  atonement  0^2)  for  him  who 
had  committed  the  Sj;p  (Lev.  v.  18),  so  that,  covered  by  this  satisfaction,  he 
might  approach  the  holy  God.  But  to  effect  directly  an  atonement  for  a  sinner's 
soul  {h^  the  offering  of  a  pure  life),  and  therefore  the  ahsolvtion  from  sin  of  the 
sinner's  person,  was  the  office  not  of  the  trespass  but  of  the  sin  offering  (8).  This 
was  offered  for  all  sins  committed  njJK;3,  and  indeed  not  merely  for  separate  of- 
fences, but  for  all  sins  unknown  and  unatoned  for  during  a  certain  period.  The 
reason  that  sin-offerings  were  combined  with  lustrations  foruncleanness,  is  found 
in  the  fact  that  sexual  conditions,  the  disease  of  leprosy,  and  death,  were  re- 
garded in  their  connection  with  the  natural  sinfulness  of  man  (comp.  §  77).  Now 
every  sin  involves  also  an  DK/N,  a  debt  (comp.  Lev.  iv.  3,  13,  22,  etc.)  ;  but  every 
debt  is  not  a  defrauding  in  the  stricter  sense,  an  infringement,  properly  speaking, 


§    137.]  THE    ATONIJSTG    SACRIFICE.  303 

of  the  Divine  rights,  though  it  must  certainly  be  conceded  that  the  limits  cannot 
always  be  clearly  defined.  Where  such  a  'lHO  does  not  take  place,  the  expiation 
of  the  person  efJected  by  the  sin-offering  annuls  also  the  DE/N  without  any  farther 
offering.  From  what  has  been  said,  it  is  also  easy  to  understand  why  the  tres- 
pass-offerings always  refer  to  certain  concrete  cases,  and  never,  like  the  sin-offer- 
ings, to  the  offences  in  general  committed  during  whole  periods,  and  do  not  ap- 
pear, like  other  kinds  of  offerings,  on  festal  occasions  (comp.  Num.  vii.  38  sq.). 

(1)  [Comp.  Delitzsch's  art.  "  Schuldopfer"  in  Riehm.— That  the  sin-offeiing 
is  of  later  origin  than  the  burnt-offering  and  the  peace-offering  is  admitted.  Fol- 
the  peace-offering  appears  in  the  form  of  the  sacrificial  meal  in  the  age  of  the 
l)atriarchs,  and  the  burnt-offering  in  the  history  of  Noah  (com]).  §  121,  and  Dill- 
mann,  p.  379  sq.).  The  new  criticism,  however,  represents  that  the  sin-oft"eiiiig 
originated  far  later  than  the  time  of  Moses.  Wellhausen  (i.  76)  finds  the  sin-  nnd 
trespass-offering  first  in  Ezekiel,  and  thinks  therefore  that  these  offerings  oiigi- 
nated  not  long  before  that  prophet,  in  the  7th  century,  as  a  substitute  for  fines 
previously  customary— an  origin  which  may  be  traced  m  the  Pentateucli,  since 
they  are  not  gifts  to  God,  but  penalties  to  be  paid  to  the  priests.  Dillmann's 
judgment,  on  the  other  hand,  is  (p.  381)  :  "  The  earnestness  of  the  striving  after 
holiness,  and  the  keen  sensitiveness  in  respect  to  sin  and  guilt  which  Mosaism 
sought  to  produce,  and  did  actually  more  and  more  produce,  rendered  it  necessary 
to  furnish  the  means  of  absolution  and  purification  ;"  and  Delitzsch  ("The  Law 
of  Leprosy  in  Leviticus,"  in  Luthardt's  Zeitschrijt,  1880)  shows  that  the  sin- 
and  trespass-offerings  were  among  the  rites  in  the  purification  of  lepers,  after 
having  previously  exhibited  the  evidence  that  the  law  of  leprosy  "  sustains  the 
historical  character  of  the  Mosaic  legislation  in  the  most  satisfactory  manner." 
That  Ezekiel  in  any  case  presupposes  the  sin-  and  trespass-offerings  as  well 
known  (comp.  the  first  mentioned  of  thtm  in  his  prophecy,  xl.  39),  w-^ill  not  be 
denied  (comp.  besides  Delitzsch,  p.  8,  especially  Kittel,  Stud.  a.  W.  1881,  p.  60, 
sqq.).  On  more  or  less  certain  traces  of  the  sin-offering  before  the  exile,  see 
Delitzsch,  p. 8,  sqq  :  Dillmann,  p.  413  :  Bredenkamp,  p.  198,  comp.  with  59sq.,and 
the  variously  explained  passages,  2  K.  xii.  17  ;  Hos.  iv.  8  (ace.  to  Delitzsch,  who 
agrees  with  Keil,  "They  eat  up  the  sin-offering  of  my  people,  and  thereupon, 
that  they  may  be  themselves  guiltless,  they  direct  each  one  his  desire,"  a  render- 
ing which  Bredenkamp  does  not  accept)  ;  Micah  vi.  7  ;  Jer.  xxii.  1  (perhaps 
an  allusion  to  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  the  sin-offering  ujjon  the  horns  of 
the  altar)  ;  Ps.  xl.  7.] 

(2)  This,  which  was  formerly  the  most  widely  accepted  view,  is  alluded  to  by 
Josephus,  A»t.  iii.  9.  3,  and  among  modern  writers  has  been  especially  defended 
by  Winer  {Reallex.  ii.  3d  edit.  p.  432  sq.).  This  distinction  receives  no  adequate 
support  from  Lev.  iv.  23,  28,  wliere  J^"7iri  does  not  necessarily  imply  an  objective 
conviction  (comp.  i'T,  v.  3  sq.)  ;  it  also  leaves  several  cases  of  the  trespass-offering 
unexjilained,  as  that  of  the  leper  and  the  Nazarite,  and  that  prescribed  xix.  20 
sqq.  ;  comp.  also  Ezra  x.  9,  where  a  pul^lic  conviction  took  ])lace.  Ewald's  view, 
tiiat  the  trespass-offering  was  the  penitential  offering  of  "  one  who  felt  himself 
excluded  from  the  congregation  by  some  transgression  which  depressed  him,  or 
by  some  secret  Divine  infliction,"  and  that  the  sin-offering  was  presented  when 
the  fault  was  first  remarked  by  others,  is  akin  to  this  {Antiquities  p.  57  sq.).  See 
the  enumeration  of  other  views  in  Knobel  on  Lev.  v.  14  sq. 

(3)  [Dillmann  refers  this  passage  to  the  case  in  which  one  feels  burdened  with 
a  certain  sense  of  guilt  on  account  of  an  unintentional  violation  of  a  divine  com- 
mand, though  without  being  able  to  name  it.  In  this  case  he  must  bring  a  tres- 
pass-offering, because  the  transgression  consisted  possibly  in  an  embezzlement. 
But  according  to  the  conclusion  reached  at  the  end  of  the  text  in  this  section,  a 
sin-offering  would  be  more  natural  for  an  indistinct  feeling  of  guilt,  and  hence  we 
phould  be  justified  in  borrovring  the  more  definite  meaning  of  the  indefinite  ex- 


304   THE  COVE^STAXT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  138. 

pression  from  its  conncctioa  with  the  preceding  verses,  and  referring  the  passage 
to  the  Sjro  unwittingly  committed.] 

(4)  In  1  Sam.  vi.  3  sq.,  the  expression  Q^^  y^T}  is  used  of  the  gifts  wliich  the 
Philistines  offer  as  an  expiation  for  their  detention  of  the  ark. 

(5)  Accordmg  to  Lev.  xix.  20-32,  any  who  should  lie  with  the  bondmaid  of 
another,  besides  undergoing  a  civil  penalty  (i^")p3,  probably  corporal  punish- 
ment), was  also  to  offer  a  ram,  of  which,  moreover,  no  estimation  was  prescribed, 
to  Jehovah  as  an  atonement  for  his  fault.  The  omission  of  the  estimation  may 
be  explained  by  the  consideration  that  there  was  here,  generally  speaking,  no 
Si!0  that  could  be  estimated  by  money.  Hofmann  {ScJu'iftbeweis,  ii.  p.  2G0)  takes 
quite  a  different  view  of  the  passage. 

(G)  Comp.  Riehm,  idem,  p.  101  sq.  Keil  (Archdol.  i.  p.  221)  objects  that  the 
leper  was  not  guilty  of  this  exclusion  from  the  public  worship  of  God,  and  like- 
wise that  the  Nazarite  who,  during  the  period  of  his  consecration,  liad  un- 
wittingly contracted  ceremonial  uucleanuess,  had  violated  no  right.  But  he  here 
fails  to  observe  the  significance  of  leprosy  and  uncleanness  in  the  eye  of  the  law. 
If  both  involved  the  necessity  of  a  sin-offering,  the  infraction  thereby  committed 
upon  the  sphere  of  Divine  rights  might  also  be  regarded  as  a  matter  for  which 
compensation  should  be  made. — [Dillmann  thinks  that  this  trespass-offering  also 
must  be  explained  on  the  presumption  that  some  obscure  guilt,  not  distinctly 
known,  had  occasioned  the  misfortune  of  the  persons  in  question.] 

(7)  With  respect,  finally,  to  the  trespass-offering,  which,  at  Ezra's  requirement 
(Ezra  x.  18  sq.),  those  were  to  bring  who  had  married  strange  wives,  we  find  that 
here  also  a  /^^D  was  in  question  (comp.  vers.  2  and  10)  :  the  desecration  of  the 
covenant  people  by  heathen  blood  (comp.  ix.  2)  was  an  act  of  injustice  and  fraud 
toward  the  covenant  God  which  demanded  compensation. 

(8)  [Delitzsch  :  "  The  fundamental  idea  of  the  sin-offering  is  expiatio,  that  of 
the  trespass-offering,  satufaetio :  in  the  former,  the  evangelical  feature  is  prom- 
inent, in  the  latter,  the  disciplinary."] 

§138. 

2.    The  Ritual  and  Im.'port  of  the  Trespass  and  the  Sin  Offerings :    The  Ti'esjmss- 

Offering. 

There  is  a  decided  difference  in  the  ritual  of  these  two  offerings,  corresponding 
to  their  different  intentions.  Only  the  male  sheep,  generally  the  full-grown 
(according  to  the  Mishna  Sebachim,  x.  5,  two-year  old)  ram,  the  very  animal  not 
included  among  the  sin-offering  victims,  was  used  for  the  trespass-offering  ;  hence 
the  technical  expression  Q"^^ii7  /'*?.  In  the  case  alone  of  the  trespass-offerings  of 
the  leper  and  the  Nazarite  was  the  less  costly  animal— the  male  (according  tn 
Num.  vi.  12,  and  LXX,  Lev.  xiv,  10,  one-year  old)  lamb  (i^5|) — prescribed, 
undoubtedly  to  point  out  the  inferior  degree  of  the  D^^.  Why  the  male  shee]) 
was  selected  for  the  trespass-offering  cannot  be  exactly  determined.  Riehm  {id. 
p.  117)  thinks  that  it  was  because  an  infraction  of  law  has  the  character  of 
violence.  It  was,  however,  general  in  ancient  times  to  use  rams  and  other  male 
animals  for  fines  (comp.  Knobel  and  Dillmann  on  Lev.  v.  15).  Another  essential 
distinction  between  the  trespass-and  the  sin-offering  w^as,  that  the  victims  were 
in  the  former  case  always  the  same,  whatever  might  be  the  position  of  the  offerer 
in  the  theocracy  ;  nor  could  a  substitute  be  admitted,  as  in  the  sin-offering,  on 
account  of  the  poverty  of  the  worshipper.  This  makes  it  clear  that  the  chief 
pbject  of  the  trespass-offering  was  not  an  expiation  for  the  person  as  such,  but  a 


§    139.]  THE    RITUAL   OF   THE    SIN-OFFERIITCt.  305 

compensation  for  a  strictly  defined  injury.  The  circumstance,  also,  that  a  certain 
margin  was,  in  Lev.  v.  15,  left  in  the  estimation  of  the  ram  (by  the  demand  of  an 
indefinite  number  of  shekels,  two  or  more),  shows  that  the  value  of  the  ram  was 
to  bear  a  certain  proportion  to  the  greatness  of  the  ^V-'Q  (1). — The  proceedino-g  at 
the  bringing  of  the  trespass-offering  are  laid  down  in  Lev.  vii.  1-7.  The  laying 
on  of  the  hand  is  not  specially  mentioned  in  this  passage,  on  which  account 
Rinck  {id.  p.  375  sq.)  and  Knobel  {in  loco)  suppose  that  it  did  not  take  place, 
wliich  the  latter  explains  by  the  consideration  that  it  is  not  a  surrender,  a  free- 
will offering,  but  an  imposed  penance  which  is  here  in  question.  It  cannot,  how- 
ever, be  proved  that  the  act  of  laying  the  hand  on  the  head  of  the  victim  ex- 
pressed a  voluntary  surrender  ;  and  the  non-mention  of  this  act  in  the  passage 
quoted  may,  as  in  the  corresponding  jjassage  on  the  sin-offering,  vi.  17-23,  be 
accidental  [so  also  Dillmann].  The  trespass  as  well  as  the  burnt-offering  and  the 
sin-offering  was  slain  at  the  north  side  of  the  altar.  There  is  no  kind  of  hint 
that  its  slaughter  signified  the  substitutionary  suffering  of  death  by  the  ram  for 
the  transgressor,  as  even  Keil  {Archdologie,  i.  p.  237)  here  supposes  ;  (the  most 
striking  case  would  have  been  the  trespass-offering  of  the  Nazarite).  The  sym- 
bolical equivalent  for  the  trespass  was  the  ram  as  estimated  by  the  priest.  The 
blood  was,  as  in  the  burnt-offering  and  peace-offering,  only  sprinkled  about  the 
altar  (2),  the  same  portions  of  fat  as  in  the  peace-offering  and  sin-offering  being 
burnt  upon  the  altar.  The  rest  of  the  flesh  was  treated  as  in  sin-offerings  of  the 
lower  grade,  that  is  to  say,  it  was  to  be  consumed  by  the  priests  (only  by  males) 
in  the  holy  place.  For  it  is  self-evident  that  he  who  was  offering  it  could  not 
himself  be  allowed  to  partake  of  the  compensation  he  was  rendering  for  an 
offence  committed  (3). 

(1)  Comp.  Eiehm,  id.  p.  119.  The  words,  Lev.  v.  15,  Q'^p^ti'  ^^2,  'l^l^'S,  "ac- 
cording to  thy  estimation,  a  sum  of  shekels,"  are  understood  by  the  older  au- 
thorities of  an  estimation  amounting  to  two  shekels. 

(2)  Thus  even  in  the  particular  in  which  especially  the  peculiarity  of  the  sin- 
offerings  appears,  viz.  the  manipulation  of  the  blood,  the  trespass-offering  stands 
on  a  level  with  the  other  kinds  of  sacrifices. 

(3)  The  significance  of  the  several  elements  of  the  act  of  sacrifice  has  already 
been  discussed.  The  consumption  of  the  flesh  by  the  priests  will  be  further 
treated  of  when  we  come  to  the  sin-offering. 


§  139. 

Continuation  :   The  Ritual  of  the  Sin-Offer ing  (1). 

Peculiar  to  the  sin-offering  are — 

1.  The  difference  of  the  victims,  according  to  the  theocratic  position  of  him  for 
whom  they  were  sacrificed,  and  in  a  certain  sense  also  to  the  occasion  of  the  of- 
fering. The  victim  was  a  young  lullocTc  in  sin-offerings  of  the  highest  grade,  viz. 
those  for  the  high  priest  on  the  Day  of  Atonement,  Lev.  xvi.  3,  or  when  he  had 
transgressed  in  his  ofiice  of  representative  of  the  people  (Lev.  iv.  3,  "to  the  of- 
fence of  the  people"),  or  when  the  whole  congregation  had  transgressed,  iv.  13  ; 
or,  finally,  the  sin-offerings  pertaining  to  the  consecration  of  priests  and  Levites 
(Ex.  xxix.  10,  14,  36  ;  Num.  viii.  8).     A  kid  of  the  goats  {"^'W  D'lJ?)  was  the  sin- 


30G   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  139. 

offering  for  the  people  on  the  Day  of  Atonement  (Lev.  xvi.  5),  on  the  other  yearly 
festivals,  and  at  the  New  Moon  (Num.  xxviii.  15,  22,  80,  xxix.  5,  etc.)  ;  for  the 
offence  of  a  ruler  {^'^},  Lev.  iv.  23  s(i.)  ;  at  the  dedication  of  the  tabernacle  (ix. 
3,  15,  comp.  Num.  vii.  16,  etc.)  ;  and  again  for  the  offences  of  the  congregation 
(Num.  XV.  24),  viz.  when  something  had  been  committed  "  away  from  the  eyes," 
i.e.  behind  the  back'of  the  congregation  (2).  A  goat  or  a  female  lamb  was  to  be 
offered  for  the  offence  of  an  ordinary  Israelite  (Lev.  iv.  28,  32,  v.  6)  ;  a  ewe-lamb 
of  the  first  year  was  the  sin-offeriug  at  the  release  from  the  Nazarite's  vow  (Num. 
vi.  14),  and  at  the  purification  of  tlie  leper  (Lev.  xiv.  10,  19).  Turtle  doves  and 
young  pigeons  formed  the  sin-offerings  at  purifications  (Lev.  xii.  6,  xv.  14,  20  ; 
Num.  vi.  10),  and  were  the  substitutes  for  a  lamb  or  other  small  cattle  from  the 
poor  who  were  unable  to  afford  the  latter  (Lev.  v.  7,  xiv.  23).  If  any  were  not 
able  to  offer  even  pigeons,  a  tenth  part  of  an  ephah  of  fine  flour,  but  without  oil 
or  frankincense,  might  be  substituted  in  the  case  of  ordinary  offences  (v.  11)  (3). 

2.  The  Hood  was  brought  to  more  sacred  places  than  was  the  case  in  other  sacrifi- 
ces, and  in  the  three  following  degrees  :  a.  In  sin-offerings  of  goats,  kids,  or  lambs, 
for  individual  Israelites  (with  the  exception  of  the  high  priest),  some  of  the  blood 
was  smeared  on  the  horns  of  the  altar,  and  the  rest  poured  out  at  its  base  (Lev. 
iv.  25,  30,  34).  The  same  was  done  at  the  sin-offering  of  a  bullock  at  the  conse- 
cration of  priests,  Ex.  xxix.  12,  and  undoubtedly  at  that  of  Levites  also.  &.  In 
the  sin-offerings  of  bullocks  offered  for  the  congregation  or  for  the  high  priest  on 
other  occasions  than  the  Day  of  Atonement,  the  blood  was  sprinkled  seven  times 
toward  the  inner  veil,  the  horns  of  the  altar  of  incense  were  smeared  therewith, 
and  the  rest  was  poured  out  at  the  base  of  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  (Lev.  iv.  5 
sqq.,  16  sqq.).  c.  At  the  greatest  of  the  sin-offerings,  viz.  that  on  the  Day  of 
Atonement,  the  blood  was  taken  into  the  Holy  of  Holies  (see  thereon  §  140). 

8.  The  consumption  in  sin-offerings  of  the  lower  grade  (except  those  made  at 
the  consecration  of  priests)  of  the  flcsJi  of  the  sacrifice,  which  had  come  into  close 
contact  with  God,  and  was  therefore  designated  as  most  holy  (Lev.  vi.  33,  K/Tp 
^'"'^IpT)  comp.  Knobel  on  Lev.  xxi.  33),  by  the  priests  in  the  fore-court  of  the 
sanctuary,  vi.  18  sq.  In  sin-offerings  of  the  higher  grade,  and  those  made  at  the 
consecration  of  priests,  the  flesh,  together  with  the  skin,  head,  bones,  entrails,  and 
dung,  were  burned  in  a  clean  place  outside  the  camp  (Lev.  iv.  11  sq.,  31,  vi.  23, 
xvi.  27)  (4).  Whoever  had  his  garment  sprinkled  with  the  blood  of  the  sin-offer- 
ing, was  to  wash  it  out  in  the  holy  place,  evidently  to  guard  against  a  profanation 
of  the  sacred  blood.  The  vessels  in  which  the  sin-offerings  of  the  lower  grade 
had  been  boiled  were,  if  of  earth,  to  be  broken  ;  if  of  brass  or  copper,  to  be 
scoured  with  the  greatest  care  (vi.  28  sq.).  In  offerings  of  the  higher  grade,  he 
who  had  burnt  the  flesh  without  the  camp  was  to  bathe,  and  wash  his  clothes 
before  his  return  to  the  camp  (xvi.  28)  (5). 

The  explanation  of  the  ritual  of  the  sin-offering  must  be  connected  with  what 
has  already  been  said  on  the  nature  of  sacrificial  atonement.  To  substitute  for  the 
impure  soul  of  the  sinner  a  pure  soul,  which,  being  offered  to  God,  may  cover  the 
offerer,  is,  as  remarked,  §  127,  the  meaning  of  a  bloody  offering,  and  consequent- 
ly the  direct  intention  of  the  sin-olTering.  The  representation  of  the  offerer's 
person  being  tlie  matter  in  question,  the  value  of  the  victim  corresponds  with  the 
difference  of  his  theocratic  position.     The  reason  for  the  predominance  of  goats 


§    139.]  THE    KITUAL   OF   THE    SIN-OFFERING.  307 

(especially  the  he-goat)  in  the  sin-oflfering  may  be  that  their  flesh  M-as  cousidered 
less  delicate  (6)  ;  for  the  consumption  of  the  flesh  by  the  priests  in  some  of  the 
sin-offerings  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  formal  repast.  With  this  corresponds  the 
omission  of  the  oil  in  the  substitionary  flour-offering  of  the  poor.  Applying,  then, 
our  former  propositions,  we  find  that  the  significance  of  the  several  elements  of 
the  sin-offering  is  as  follows  :  The  laying  on  of  the  hand,  with  which  was  probably 
connected  the  confession  of  sin,  is  meant  to  express  the  intention  of  the  offerer  to 
sacrifice  the  pure  life  of  the  animal  as  a  covering  for  his  impure  soul.  The  sacri- 
fice itself  follows  in  the  blood  obtained  by  the  slaughter,  and  then  immediately 
applied  to  the  holy  place,  where  God  is  present.  And  to  show  that  this  offering 
of  the  blood  in  the  sin-offering  is  not  the  presupposition,  but  the  main  point 
of  the  sacrificial  act,  the  blood  is  here  actually  placed  upon  the  alta?' ;  nay, 
to  bring  it,  as  it  were,  as  near  as  possible  to  God,  it  is  even  applied  to  the  horns 
of  the  altar  (comp.  §  119)  (7).  This  bringing  near  of  the  blood  to  God  advances 
in  sin-offerings  of  the  higher  grade,  till  it  reaches  its  climax  in  the  great  annual 
Atonement,  the  blood  of  which  attains  the  nearest  approach,  by  being  brought 
into  the  Holy  of  Holies  (8).  The  offering  of  the  blood  is  followed  by  the  lurning 
of  the  fatty  portions  upon  the  altar,  and  that,  as  is  distinctly  said.  Lev.  iv.  31, 
•^PY  '^'^'^  ^^y^.i — »ii  addition  which  must  not  be  overlooked  (9),  as  showing 
that  the  burning  of  the  fat  in  the  sin-offering  cannot  have  an  essentially  different 
meaning  from  that  which  it  bears  in  the  peace-offering  (10).  God  commands 
that  the  fat  also  of  the  pure  victim,  whose  blood  He  has  accepted  as  a  covering 
for  the  soul  of  the  sinner,  should  be  conveyed  to  Him  by  means  of  fire,  and  this 
gives  it  the  significance  of  a  propitiatory  offering,  the  acceptance  of  which  serves 
as  a  sanction  to  the  preceding  act  of  atonement  (11).  Only  the  fat,  however, 
and  not  the  whole  animal,  was  presented  on  the  altar,  to  give  prominence  to  the 
idea  that  in  this  sacrifice  the  offering  of  a  gift  holds  a  secondary  position  to  the  act  of 
expiation.  The  rest  of  the  flesh,  moreover,  w\as  not  to  be  used  in  a  manner  by 
which  this  sanctissimum  could  be  in  any  way  profaned.  It  is  self-evident  that 
they  by  whom  the  sin-offering  was  brought  could  not  be  permitted  any  use  of  it. 
Hence,  in  sin-offerings  of  the  higher  grade,  in  which  the  priests  themselves  were 
included  among  those  for  whom  atonement  was  made,  all  that  remained  to  be 
done  was  to  destroy  the  flesh  in  a  clean  manner  ;  for  this  is  the  meaning  of  the 
burning,  as  even  the  expression  chosen,  ^')'^  (in  distinction  from  1'Ppn,  comp. 
§  128),  shows.  But  why,  it  may  be  asked,  was  the  flesh  of  sin-offerings  of  the 
lower  grade,  as  well  as  that  of  the  peace-offerings,  to  be  consumed  by  the  priests 
in  their  official  capacity  in  the  holy  place  ?  The  answer  is  furnished  by  Lev.  x.  17, 
though  not  indeed  in  the  sense  in  which  the  passage  has  been  usually  interpreted. 
When  it  is  said  in  this  very  variously  understood  passage,  that  the  sin-offering 
is  given  to  the  priests  to  eat,  "  to  take  away  the  guilt  of  the  congregation,  and  to 
atone  for  them  before  the  Lord," — the  actual  taking  away  of  guilt  and  atonement 
being  the  result  of  the  offering  of  the  blood, — the  expression  must  be  taken  (as 
by  Vatablus)  as  declaratory.  The  eating  of  the  flesh  by  the  priests  involves,  like 
the  burning  of  the  fat,  an  acceptance  on  the  part  of  God,  which  serves  to  declare 
and  confirm  the  fact  that  the  sacrifice  has  actually  attained  its  end  of  making  an 
atonement.  [So  also  Dillmann.]  So  far  Philo  {de  vict.  §  13)  really  sees  correctly, 
when  he  points  out  as  one  of  the  reasons  for  this  use  of  the  flesh  of  the  sin-offering. 


308  THE  COVENAKT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  TIIEOCKACY.    [§  139. 

the  quieting  of  the  offerer's  mind  by  the  assurance  of  forgiveness  ;  for  God  would 
not  have  bidden  His  servants  to  partake  of  such  a  meal,  unless  a  full  oblivion  of 
sin  had  taken  place  (12). 

Very  diflferently  is  the  ritual  of  the  sin-offering  explained,  when  its  essential 
feature  is  made  to  consist  in  the  infliction  of  a  poena  vicaria.  Not  to  repeat  what 
has  already  been  said  on  this  point  (§  126  sq.),  we  will  confine  ourselves  to  the 
following  remarks.  According  to  this  theory,  the  animal  is  said  to  be,  by  the 
laying  on  of  the  hand,  laden  with  sin,  and  thus  to  have  become  "  incarnate  siu" 
(in  the  antitype,  3  Cor.  v.  31  :  God  "made  Christ  to  be  sin"),  the  impurity  of 
the  sinner  being  transferred  to  the  victim,  and,  as  it  were,  imbibed  by  it.  Thus 
the  Rabbins  (13),  and  among  the  moderns,  e.g.  Hengstenberg  {Evang.  Kirchemeit- 
ung,  1852,  p.  117  sq.).  In  this  case  the  sprinkling  of  blood  which  follows  is  not 
the  real  act  of  atonement  ;  on  the  contrary,  its  intention  is  (comp.  Hengstenberg, 
p.  122)  the  exhibition  of  the  atonement  effected  by  the  death  of  the  victim,  and  of 
its  acceptance  on  the  part  of  God.  While,  then,  Kurtz,  e.g.  as  already  cited,  §  127, 
views  the  victim  as  restored  in  integrv.m  by  death, — which  makes  it  explicable 
why  the  burnt  fat  of  this  sin-offering  is  a  sweet  savor  to  God, — others,  on  the 
contrary  (14),  regard  sin  as  still  cleaving  to  the  flesh  of  the  victim,  and  the  act  of 
atonement  as  completed  when  the  priests  eat  the  sin-offering,  and  thus  having,  as 
it  were,  incorporated  the  sin,  annul  it  by  their  ofiicial  holiness.  This  view  has 
been  chiefly  vindicated  by  the  name  of  the  sin-offering,  n*«£3n  (sin).  This  word, 
however,  as  well  as  i'"^?,  which  stands  in  juxtaposition  with  it,  Mic.  vi.  7,  denotes 
by  an  obvious  metonomy  that  which  is  offered  /or  sin.  The  expression  is  given 
more  in  full.  Lev.  iv.  3,  nx^n-S;r  ;  and  DX^n  also,  when  it  stands  for  the  sin-offer- 
ing, is  correctly  rendered  in  the  LXX  by  nspl  a/xapTiag.  The  obvious  objection, 
that  the  body  of  the  victim  thus  infected  with  sin  is  not,  like  the  corpse  of  an 
executed  malefactor,  cast  as  soon  as  possible  as  a  DTi^^  ^^7p  (Deut.  xxi.  23)  into 
an  unclean  place,  may  be  removed  by  the  remark  (15)  that  there  is  a  distinction 
between  inherent  and  imputed  sin,  and  that  with  the  latter  the  victim  may  never- 
theless in  another  aspect  be  regarded  as  most  holy,  for  which  twofold  significance 
of  the  victim  the  ceremony  Num.  xix.  7-10,  hereafter  to  be  discussed,  may  with 
some  plausibility  be  appealed  to. 

(1)  The  ordinary  sin-offering  is  here  chiefly  treated  of,  and  a  more  circumstantial 
description  of  the  great  act  of  expiation  on  the  Day  of  Atonement  subsequently 
given. 

(2)  The  precept  Num.  xv.  24  is  distinguished  from  that  given  Lev.  iv.  13  sqq., 
by  the  circumstance  that  the  latter  has  regard  to  the  case  of  a  transgression  in 
which  the  whole  congregation  shares,  the  former  to  a  case  in  which  the  congre- 
gation as  such  is  not  the  agent,  but  has  to  appear  for  the  sin  of  one  of  its  mem- 
bers, committed  probably  without  its  knowledge. 

(3)  For  it  had  not  the  character  of  the  Minhha,  properly  so  called,  from  which 
it  is  also  distinguished  by  the  nn^D3  of  Lev.  v.  13. 

(4)  According  to  Lev.  iv.  12,  to  the  place  where  the  ashes  of  the  sacrifice  were 
brought  from  the  place  mentioned,  i.  IG. 

(5)  When  pigeons  formed  the  sin-offering,  it  cannot  be  certainly  distinguished 
whether,  after  removing  the  crop  and  entrails  and  casting  them  on  the  ashes,  the 
wliole  bird  was  burnt  upon  the  altar,  or  as  stated,  Mishna  Sehachim,  vi.  4,  the 
blood  only  appertained  to  the  altar,  the  rest  to  the  priest.     From  the  flour-offering 


140.] 


THE   RITUAL  OF  THE   DAT  OF  ATONEMENT.  309 


of  the  poor  the  priest  was  to  take  a  handful  to  burn  on  the  altar,  the  rest,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  meat-offering,  becoming  his  own  (Lev.  v.  12  sq.). 

(6)  The  Rabbinical  notions,  that  the  jjropitiation  for  the  people  on  the  Day  of 
Atonement  must  necessarily  have  been  a  goat,  because  the  patriarchs  slew  a  goat 
when  Joseph  was  sold,  or  (as  Maimonides  supposes)  because  the  Israelites  had 
most  grievously  transgressed  in  the  worship  of  the  goat  (Lev.  xvii.  7),  and  the 
like,  are  scarcely  worthy  of  mention.  The  idea,  too,  of  Btihr  (Symlolih,  ii.  p. 
399),  that  the  goat,  on  account  of  its  long  shaggy  hair,  is  designed  to  allude  to 
sorrow  for  sin,  must  be  too  artificial, 

(5)  Keil,  by  viewing  the  horns  as  a  symbol  of  power,  understands  this  other- 
wise. In  his  view,  the  soul  is  symbolically  transferred  to  the  full  sway  of  the 
power  of  Divine  grace,  by  the  putting  of  the  blood  on  the  horns  of  the  altar. 

(6)  The  sevenfold  sprinklhig  which  took  place  in  the  latter  sacrifices,  signifies 
that  the  entire  covenant  relationship  with  God  was  compromised  by  sin,  and 
must  be  re-established  by  expiation. 

(7)  In  respect  to  which  only  an  incorrect  interpretation  of  the  sin-offering 
could  allow  us  to  say,  with  Knobel,  that  it  escaped  the  author  by  an  oversight. 

(8)  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  it  is  not  said  of  the  sin-offering,  as  it  is  of  both  the 
burnt-offering  and  the  peace-offering,  that  it  is  acceptahJe  to  Jehovah  Qi  T^'^y\,^ 
Lev.  i.  4,  vii.  18,  xix.  7,  xxii.  19,  23,  etc.),  for  the  bringing  of  a  sin-offering  is 
ever  a  sad  necessity. 

(9)  In  the  other  kinds  of  sacrifices,  the  preceding  expiation  by  blood  forms  the 
conditio  sine  qua  non  of  that  which  is  their  main  point,  namely,  the  offering  of  a 
gift  (comp.  §  127,  conclusion)  :  in  the  sin-offering,  on  the  contrary,  the  subsequent 
gift  serves  for  a  confirmation,  and  so  in  a  certain  sense  for  a  completion,  of  the 
expiation,  which  is  the  immediate  intention  of  this  saciifice. 

(10)  A  still  farther  declaration  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  as  added,  as  in  the 
ritual  of  the  Day  of  Atonement  (see  §  140). 

(11)  See  the  passages  in  Outram,  Be  sacrijiciis,  p.  251  sq. 

(12)  Thus  after  the  precedent  of  Deyling,  Observ.  i.  No.  Ixv.  2,  Hengstenberg, 
id.  p.  118,  Keil,  id.  p.  232  ;  comp.  also  Ewald's  Antiquities,  p.  75.  [This  view 
has  recently  been  defended  by  Riehm  in  the  dissertation,  p.  69  sqq.,  mentioned  in 
§127;  comp.  also  his  article  "  Bann"  in  his  IlaiuhcOrterhuch.  He  regards  the 
flesh  of  the  sin-offering  as  "most  holy"  in  the  same  sense  as  what  is  under  the 
ban  is  styled  most  holy,  namely,  as  fallen  under  the  destroying  wrath  of  God. 
That  the  sacrificial  flesh  of  many  sin-offerings  is  assigned  to  the  priests  as  food,  would 
be  analogous,  in  this  view,  to  the  fact  that  in  the  ban  of  lower  grade  God  ap- 
propriates forever  the  possession  fallen  to  Him,  and  to  a  degree  gives  it  over  to  His 
holy  servants  for  their  use.  Dillmann  so  far  recognizes  this  view  as  to  admit 
that  in  the  requirements  of  the  law  to  which  it  appeals,  remains  of  an  older  line 
of  thought  gradually  vanishing  appear  (p.  417,  comp.  444  sq.). — But  though  single 
features  of  the  ritual  of  sacrifice  agree  with  Riehm's  theory,  it  is  still  full  of  con- 
tradictions. How  can  the  soul  of  one  and  the  same  sacrificial  animal  be  acceptable 
to  God  as  pure,  and  the  smoke  of  the  fat  be  to  him  a  sweet  savor,  while  the  re- 
mainder is  an  object  of  his  destroying  wrath  ?J 

(13)  See  Hengstenberg,  id.  ;  comp.  Keil,  id.  p.  235. 

§  140. 

Continuation  :  The  Ritual  of  the  Day  of  Atonement  (1). 

The  supreme  act  of  expiation  was,  as  already  remarked,  that  which  took  place 
on  the  tenth  day  of  the  seventh  month  (Tisri),  the  annual  Day  of  Atonement, 
D"'*ip3n  Dl\  in  the  Talmud  ^91'',  i.e.  simply  the  day.  Fasting  being  commanded, 
on  pain  of  extirpation,  from  the  evening  of  the  ninth  till  the  evening  of  the 
tenth  (2),  it  is  called  in  Josephus  (A?it.  xiv.  4.  3)  ?}  -f/^  vr/a-Eiac  yutpa,  in  Philo  (de 


310  THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  140. 

septen.  ii.  p.  296)  y  viiaTt-iuQ  hprrj,  and  in  Acts  xxvii.  0,  briefly  //  vrjareia.  To  it 
refer  the  laws  Lev.  xvi.  23,  26-32,  and  Num.  xxix.  7-11.  On  this  day  an  atone- 
ment was  effected,  not  merely  for  the  people  and  the  priesthood,  but  in  connec- 
tion therewith  for  the  sanctuary  also,  "that  remaineth  among  them  in  the  midst 
of  their  uncleanness,"  Lev.  xvi.  16,  and  was  consequently  always  undergoing 
defilement  through  the  sins  of  the  people.  This  atonement  related,  moreover,  to 
all  the  sins  of  the  people,  and  therefore  to  those  also  which  had  been  already  ex- 
piated by  other  acts.  Bleek  {Kommentar  zu  Heb.  v.  2),  Keil  {Archuologle,  i.  p. 
404,  and  Commentary  on  Lev.  xvi.),  and  others  are  not  in  accordance  with  Lev. 
xvi.  16,  21,  30,  34,  when  they  limit  the  atonement  of  this  day  solely  to  those  sins 
and  uncleannesses  which,  in  spite  of  the  strictest  observance  of  the  laws  of  sac- 
rifice and  purification,  still  remained  unexpiated  (3).  This  deficiency  would  in- 
deed be  repaired  by  the  sin-offering  to  be  brought  at  every  new  moon  (Num. 
xxviii.  15).  But  the  act  of  atonement  performed  on  the  Day  of  Atonement, 
completed  the  expiatory  sacrifices  of  the  past  year  in  another  manner.  It  was 
founded  as  Kurtz  {Sacrificial  Worship-),  p.  386)  correctly  observes,  on  the  assumption 
that  the  atonement  in  the  fore-court  was  insufficient, — that  the  atoning  blood 
must  be  brought  for  acceptance  as  near  to  God  as  possible,  even  to  the  place  of 
His  dwelling. 

With  respect,  also,  to  the  nature  of  the  sins,  the  above  passages  seem  to  set  no 
limit  to  the  atonement.  For  while  the  usual  sin-offerings  relate,  according  to 
Lev.  iv.  2,  etc.,  to  sins  committed  "  in  error"  (see  §  137),  the  law  of  the  Day  of 
Atonement  makes  use  of  the  most  general  expressions  (jij^  and  i'^?,  as  well  as 
riNLan)  concerning  the  sins  to  be  atoned  for  on  this  day,  and  evidently  seeks,  by 
accumulating  them  (so  especially  Lev.  xvi.  21,  "  all  the  iniquities  of  the  children 
of  Israel,  and  all  their  transgressions  in  all  their  sins"),  to  exjwess  the  universality 
of  the  atonement.  Consistently  with  this,  Jewish  tradition  also  refers  the  ex- 
piation of  the  Day  of  Atonement  to  every  kind  of  sin.  The  limitation  really  ex- 
isting results  from  the  connection  with  other  laws.  This  gives  an  absolute  denial 
to  the  notion  that  the  atonement  on  this  day  would  insure  impunity  to  any  in- 
dividuals wdio  had  by  transgression  incurred  pimishraent.  It  even  assumes  as 
self-evident  that  all  sinning,  HD"]  T3,  in  the  course  of  the  year  had  been  visited 
with  the  vengeance  due  thereto,  by  the  extermination  of  the  offender.  Conse- 
quently the  act  of  expiation  availed  for  the  congregation  as  a  whole  (see  ver.  33, 
7npn  D;»-7l)).  To  this  congregation,  seeking  God's  presence  with  repentance, 
pardon  for  the  transgressions  committed  in  its  midst  during  the  course  of  the  year 
is  promised.  Their  state  of  grace  is  renewed  to  the  people  of  God  ;  while  by  the 
simultaneous  atonement  for  the  priesthood  and  sanctuary,  the  continuance  of  a 
legal  representation  before  God,  without  which  they  could  not  exist  as  His  peo- 
ple, and  of  God's  presence  in  the  midst  of  them,  is  assured  (4).  The  act  of  atone- 
ment to  be  effected  is,  as  already  pointed  out,  divided  into  two  acts,— first,  the 
atonement  for  the  high  priest  and  his  house,  whereby,  as  is  obvious  from  ver.  33, 
the  priesthood,  which  is  subsequently,  Ps.  cxv,  10,  cxviii.  3,  cxxxv.  19,  called 
the  house  of  xiaron,  is  to  be  understood,  and  then  for  the  congregation.  The 
atonement  for  the  high  priest  must  take  place  first,  because  the  mediator  capable 
of  effecting  an  atonement  for  the  people  of  God  must  first  be  prepared.  The 
atonement  for  the  sanctuary  is  connected  with  both  acts,  for  which  a  special  offer- 


§    140.]  THE    RITUAL   OF   THE    DAY    OF    ATONEMENT.  311 

ing  was  not  required,  because  the  uncleanness  pertaiuiug  to  the  Sanctuary  was 
not  treated  as  something  apart  from  the  guilt  of  the  j^riesthood  and  the  people. 

The  ritual  of  the  day  is,  according  to  Lev.  xvi.,  as  follows  :  The  high  priest 
who,  according  to  subsequent  injunction,  had  removed  a  week  before  from  his 
own  dwelling  to  a  chamber  in  the  sanctuary,  was,  as  a  preparation  for  his  func- 
tions, to  bathe  his  whole  body  (ver.  4)  (5), — not,  as  in  ordinary  ministrations,  to 
wash  merely  his  hands  and  feet, — and  then  to  put  on  the  garments  specially  ap- 
pointed for  the  act  of  expiation  to  be  on  this  day  effected.  These,  which  weie 
composed  entirely  of  white  linen  (13),  consisted  of  coat,  breeches,  girdle,  and 
mitre  (r\3J^p).  In  this  clothing,  the  ahsence  of  ornament,  by  which  it  was  dis- 
tinguished from  the  official  vestments  of  the  high  priests  on  other  occasions,  is 
undoubtedly  to  be  considered  (6)  ;  still  its  special  significance  is  to  be  an  expres- 
sion of  the  highest  degree  of  j'urity,  for  which  reason  its  assumption  is  immediately 
connected,  ver.  4,  with  the  bathing. 

The  high  priest  was  then  to  bring  the  bullock  which  he  was  to  offer,  of  course 
from  his  own  resources  (e/c  rwv  I6iuv  ava?MfidTuv,  Josephus,  Ant.  iii.  10.  3),  as  a 
sin-offering  for  himself  and  his  house,  and  the  two  kids  which  were  the  sin-offer- 
ing for  the  congregation.  Upon  the  latter  he  was  to  cast  lots,  according  to  which, 
one  was  destined  to  be  sacrificed  to  the  Lord,  the  other  to  be  sent  away  into  the 
wilderness,  '^.I^^t'^..  With  regard  to  the  latter  word,  we  wholly  reject  the  view 
which  regards  it  as  a  compound  of  U!.  (which  does  not  mean  a  he-goat,  but  a  she- 
goat)  and  /TX,  going  away,  and  consequently  as  a  designation  of  the  goat  (Vulgate, 
caper  emissarius ;  Luther  and  others,  freed-goat ;  A.V.  scape-goat  ;  this,  apart 
from  the  unusual  composition,  gives  in  ver.  10  and  26  the  very  harsh  construction, 
"in  the  capacity  of  freed-goat")  (7).  The  word  is  to  be  explained  as  a  Pealpal 
form  of  azala,  removit,  akin  to  S]i<,  to  go  forth,  contracted  from  'PJX.  It  may  be 
taken  as  a  nomen  abstractum  in  the  sense  of  "  dismissal"  :  "  for  complete  dismis- 
sal" (so  Tholuck  and  Biihr),  but  is  probably  the  name  of  the  evil  spirit  whose 
abode  is  in  the  wilderness  (so  most  interpreters),  and  who  is  thus  designated  as 
him  who  is  sent  away,  or,  as  Ewald  says,  as  the  Demon,  who  is  sent  to  a  distance. 
Such  is  perhaps  also  the  meaning  of  the  LXX,  where  the  word  is  translated  in 
vers.  8  and  10  by  ar^oKOfiTvaloQ  (8).  The  high  priest  having  then  slain  the  bullock, 
was  (while  a  priest,  as  tradition  reports,  stirred  the  blood  to  prevent  its  coagula- 
tion) to  take  a  censer  full  of  burning  coals  from  the  altar  before  the  Lord,  i.e.  the 
altar  of  burnt-offering  (9),  and  two  handfuls  of  beaten  incense,  and  to  bring  it 
within  the  veil,  i.e.  into  the  holy  of  holies  (without  looking  about  him,  according  to 
tradition).  "  And  he  shall  put  the  incense,"  it  is  further  said,  "  upon  the  fire  be- 
fore the  Lord,  that  the  cloud  of  the  incense  may  cover  the  mercy-seat  that  is  upon 
the  testimony,  that  he  die  not."  The  ascending  cloud  of  incense,  symbolical  of 
prayer  ascending  to  God,  was  to  interpose  as  a  protection  between  the  high  priest 
and  the  presence,  albeit  concealed,  of  God.  The  high  priest  probably  left  the  cen- 
ser before  the  ark  till  he  went  out  for  the  last  time,  that  the  smoke  might  be  still 
further  dispersed,  and  fill  the  Holy  of  Holies.  He  now  approached  the  altar  of 
burnt-offering,  retiring,  as  tradition  tells  us,  backward  from  the  holy  place,  to 
fetch  the  blood  of  the  bullock  and  to  begin  the  act  of  atonement  properly  so 
called.  Entering  the  Holy  of  Holies  with  the  blood,  he  sprinkled  it  with  his  fin- 
ger once  "  toward  the  mercy-seat  frontward,"  i.e.  on  its  front  side,  and  then  seven 


312   THE  COVENANT  OE  GOD  WITH  ISKAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  140. 

times  "  before  the  mercy-seat,"  i.e.  upon  the  ground  before  the  ark  (10),  leaving, 
as  may  be  presumed,  the  vessel  containing  the  blood  in  the  holy  place  for  the  next 
act  of  sprinkling.  Having  thus  made  atonement  for  himself,  he  was  now  capable  of 
making  it  for  the  congregation.  He  therefore  returned  to  the  court,  slew  the  goat 
destined  for  the  Lord,  brought  its  blood  also  into  the  Holy  of  Holies,  and  per- 
formed the  same  sprinklings  as  before.  This  concluded  the  acts  of  atonement 
made  in  the  Holy  of  Holies.  Next  followed  that  made  in  the  Holy  lylace ;  for 
it  is  this  that  is  signified  by  "^V)^  ^0^;  ^'^^-  1^5,  comp.  with  vers.  20,  23,  33,  in 
distinction  from  ^"i^.  which  here  stands  for  the  Holy  of  Holies.  Of  this  act 
it  is  briefly  said,  "So  shall  he  do  for  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation  that 
dwelleth  among  you."  This  is  to  be  supplemented  by  the  injunction  of  Ex. 
XXX.  10,  which  commands  that  an  atonement  was  to  be  made  once  a  year 
upon  the  horns  of  the  altar  of  incense  with  the  blood  of  the  sin-offering  of 
atonement.  Hence  it  may  be  assumed  that  a  single  application  of  the  blood 
to  the  horns  of  the  altar  of  incense,  followed  by  a  sevenfold  sprinkling  in 
front  of  it,  corresponding  with  the  process  within  the  Holy  of  Holies,  took  place. 
It  is,  however,  uncertain  whether  this  was  done  first  with  the  blood  of  the  bullock 
then  with  that  of  the  goat,  or  whether,  as  tradition  (M.  Joma,  v.  4  ;  Maimonides, 
iii.  5)  states,  and  as  is  more  probable,  the  blood  of  both  victims  was  mingled  for 
the  purification  of  the  holy  place.  It  is  further  remarked  (Lev.  xvl.  17)  that  dur- 
ing these  acts  of  atonement  by  the  high  priest,  no  one  besides  himself  might  be 
present  in  the  tabernacle,  lest  the  presence  of  another  should  again  render  the 
sanctuary  unclean.  Lastly  followed  the  atonement  for  the  altar  of  T)urnt-offering, 
which  here,  as  well  as  in  ver.  12,  is  called  the  altar  that  is  before  the  Lord  (11). 
The  atonement  for  the  priesthood,  the  congregation,  and  the  sanctuary,  accord- 
ing to  its  three  divisions,  being  thus  completed,  the  other  goat  (ver.  20,  comp. 
with  ver.  10),  on  which  the  lot  for  Azazel  fell,  was  to  be  brought  hither,  i.e. 
before  the  altar  of  burnt-offering,  and  presented  alive  before  the  Lord,  and  indeed, 
as  is  added  in  ver.  10,  Vi;?  '^?^?)  "which  controverted  words  (12)  are  probably  to  be 
explained  "to  cover  him"  (the  goat),  viz.  by  the  application  of  the  blood  of  the 
slaughtered  goat.  The  proceedings  at  the  purification  of  the  recovered  leper,  Lev. 
xiv.  6,  and  the  infected  house,  ver.  51,  elucidate  this  point.  Here  two  birds 
were  taken  :  the  one  was  killed  ;  and  the  other,  after  being  dipped  in  the  blood 
of  the  first,  was  let  loose  into  the  open  field.  As  the  slain  goat  represented  the 
people  for  whom  atonement  was  to  be  made,  so  was  the  living  goat  (on  which  see 
§  141)  the  instrument  of  the  people,  when,  an  atonement  having  been  made,  they 
had  become  partakers  of  Divine  forgiveness.  "  This  duality  of  the  goats  is  caused 
only  (as  Ilengstenberg,  Egijpt  and  the  BooTcs  of  Moses,  p.  1G5,  rightly  remarks)  by 
the  physical  impossibility  of  representing  the  two  elements  to  be  represented  by 
a  single  example. "  By  the  application  of  the  blood  of  the  first  goat  to  the  second, 
it  was  moreover  declared,  that  only  in  virtue  of  the  atonement  effected  by  the 
blood  of  the  first  goat  are  the  people  placed  in  a  condition  to  send  away  their  sins 
as  forgiven  to  Azazel  (13).  The  act  of  sending  away  the  goat  is  thus  described 
(Lev.  xvi.  21  sq.)  :  "And  let  Aaron  lay  both  his  hands  upon  the  head  of  the 
live  goat  (14,  and  confess  over  him  all  the  iniquities  of  the  children  of  Israel,  and 
all  their  transgressions  according  to  all  their  sins,  and  let  him  put  them  upon  the 
head  of  the  goat,  and  send  him  away  by  a  man  ready  at  hand  into  the  wilderness. 


§    140.]  THE   RITUAL   OF   THE    DAY    OF    ATONEMENT.  313 

And  let  the  goat  bear  upon  him  all  their  iniquities  into  a  separated  land"(]'"?.^ 
'Tjy),  i.e.  a  place  whence  no  road  leads  back  to  the  dwellings  of  the  people  (so 
there  need  be  no  anxiety  lest  the  goat  should  find  his  way  back  to  their  abodes). 
Thus  were  the  sins  laid  upon  the  goat  to  be,  as  it  were,  banished  to  a  place  re- 
moved from  all  contact  with  the  people.  That  the  goat  was  to  perish  in  the 
wilderness,  and  thus  to  suffer  what  is  due  to  the  sinner,  upon  whom  his  sin  re- 
mains, is  by  no  means  hinted  in  the  text.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the  high  priest, 
according  to  a  subsequent  enactment,  invoked  upon  the  goat  the  punishment  due 
to  all  the  transgressions  of  Israel,  and  that  tradition  furtlier  declares  (M.  Joma, 
vi.  6)  that  the  goat  was  cast  down  from  a  rock  and  destroyed  by  the  fall.  The 
law,  however,  would  never  have  been  silent  concerning  so  essential  a  feature.  He 
who  had  led  away  the  goat  for  Azazel  was  (ver.  26)  to  wash  his  clothes,  and  to 
bathe,  and  afterward  to  come  into  the  camp. 

After  the  goat  was  sent  into  the  wilderness  (15),  the  high  priest  betook  him- 
self to  the  (ver.  23)  tabernacle,  took  off  the  linen  garments,  and  deposited  them 
there,  then  bathed  again  in  the  court,  put  on  his  usual  official  garments,  and 
offered  the  burnt-offerings,  consisting  of  the  rams  mentioned  vers.  3  and  5,  for 
himself  and  the  people  (16).  Together  with  the  flesh  of  the  burnt-offering  w^as 
also  burned  the  fat  of  the  previously  slain  sin-offerings.  The  flesh  of  the  latter 
(ver.  27),  with  their  skins  and  dung,  was  to  be  sent  forth  without  the  camp,  and 
there  burned  (comp.  §  139).  The  man  who  performed  this  office  was,  according 
to  ver.  28,  to  wash  his  clothes  and  bathe,  and  afterward  to  return  to  the  camp. 
It  was  not  until  all  connected  with  the  act  of  atonement  to  be  performed  on  this 
day  was  completed,  that  the  festival  offerings  prescribed  for  the  day.  Num.  xxix. 
7,  11,  were  offered,  as  tradition  distinctly  asserts  (17). 

(1)  Compare  my  article  "  Versohnungstag"  in  Herzog's  Real- Ency Mop,  xxi.  p.  446 
sq.  The  traditional  institutions  concerning  the  Day  of  Atonement  are  given  in  the 
Talmudic  treatise  Joma,  the  Mishna  text  of  which  was  first  separately  edited  by 
Sheringham  in  the  year  1648,  with  explanations,  which  are  also  adopted  in  the 
Surenhus  edition  of  the  Mishna.  The  Thosaphta  to  the  treatise  Joma  is  printed 
in  Ugolino's  Thes.  antiq.  sacr.  xviii.  p.  153  sq.,  as  is  also  the  Jerusalem  Gemara 
thereto.  A  translation  of  the  section  on  the  ritual  of  the  Day  of  Atonement  from 
Maimonides,  Hajad  liachazaka,  is  given  by  Delitzsch  in  his  Commentary  to  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  ii.  p.  464  sqq.  Compare  also  Lightfoot,  minidcrium  temptli, 
Kap.  15  {0pp.  i.  p.  744  sqq.)  ;  Lund,  JihUsdie  EeiligtJmme?',  p.  1027  sqq.  ;  J.  G. 
Carpzov,  Appar.  antiq.  s.  cod.  p.  433  sqq.  ;  J.  A.  Danz,  fvnctio  pontif.  M.  in  adyto 
anniversaria,  inMeuschen's  Nov.  Test,  ex  Talm.  ilUistr.  p.  912  sqq.  ;  Biihr,  SymhoUk 
des  mos.  Kultvs,  ii.  p.  664  sqq.  ;  Winer,  Bibl.  Realworterhuch,  in  loc.  ;  Hengstcn- 
berg,  Egypt  and  the  Bools  of  Moses,  p.  168  ;  Keil,  Bihl.  Archdol.  i.  \).  400  sqq.  ; 
Kurtz,  Sacrificial  Worship  of  the  O.T.  p.   385  sqq. 

(2)  Comp.  Lev.  xvi.  29-31,  xxiii.  27-29.  This  command  was  the  better  calcu- 
lated to  produce  an  appreciation  of  the  serious  nature  of  this  solemnity,  inasmuch 
as  no  other  fast  was  prescribed  by  the  Mosaic  law  (comp.  §  134). 

(3)  It  is,  moreover,  peculiar  to  the  Mosaic  institutions  to  accumulate  acts  of 
atonement,  for  the  express  purpose  of  producing  a  consciousness  of  their  inade- 
quacy (comp.  w^hat  is  said  §  96). 

(4)  Each  individual  Israelite  might  appropriate  to  himself  this  atoning  grace, 
so  far  as  he  was  truly  a  member  of  the  congregation  thus  seeking  God's  grace,  and 
proved  himself  to  be  such  by  professing  contrition  in  the  manner  prescribed,  Lev. 
xvi.  31,  xxiii.  27  sq.  No  sacrifice,  on  the  other  hand,  could  avail  (comp.  1  Sam. 
jii.  14)  for  hira  who,  by  wilfully  cherishing  sin,  separated  himself  from  the  cove- 


314   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCKACY.    [§  140. 

nant.  This  is  the  manner  ia  which  the  statements  of  Lev.  xvi.  16,  21,  30,  may  be 
reconciled  with  Heb.  ix.  7,  v.  2.  When  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  refers  the  act 
of  the  Day  of  Atonement  merely  to  the  ayvoi^nara  of  the  people,  this  expression  is 
not  meant  to  exclude  all  sins  consciously  committed  from  the  atonement,  but  to 
express  the  contrast  to  those  transgressions  in  which,  as  subsequent  impenitence 
testified,  a  breach  of  the  covenant  was  intended. 

(5)  For  further  particulars  see  the  article  in  Herzog,  p.  456. 

(6)  The  high  priest,  in  fulfilling  the  expiatory  functions  committed  to  him  on 
this  day,  was  not,  as  Ilofmann  (Weissagvng  vnd  Erfullung,  i.  p.  148)  rightly  re- 
marks, to  ajjpear  before  the  people  in  the  splendor  befitting  the  delegate  of  Jehovah, 
but  before  the  Lord  in  the  simple  purity  of  his  God-ordained  office.  We  cannot, 
however,  with  Kurtz  {id.  p.  389),  see  in  this  injunction  a  reduction  to  the  garments 
of  the  ordinary  priests,  nor  still  less,  according  to  the  view  revived  by  Knobel 
in  loco,  a  penitential  garb.  The  former  notion,  according  to  which  the  high  priest 
was  to  officiate  on  this  day  not  as  the  chief  of  the  priest  iiood,  but  as  the  priest  ap- 
pointed for  the  day,  is  inconsistent  witli  the  eminent  importance  of  the  act  of  in- 
tercession to  be  performed,  which  must  be  made  by  the  very  man,  whose  dignity 
equalled  that  of  the  whole  people,  and  to  whom  the  full  power  of  the  whole 
priesthood  was  committed  (see  §  96).  To  this  may  be  added,  that  the  girdle  of 
the  ordinary  priests  was  not  entirely  white,  and  that  they  wore  not  the  r\?np,  but 
the  n>^3Jp,  on  their  heads.  To  the  second  view  Keil  justly  raises  the  objection  : 
Where  in  all  the  world  are  garments  of  dazzling  whiteness  worn  as  symbols  of 
mourning  or  penitence  ?  The  High  Priest  wore  the  white  linen  garments  on  the 
day  he  entered  the  Holy  of  Holies,  the  seat  of  the  divine  Shekhina,  for  the  same 
reason  that  they  are  attributed  to  the  highest  spirits  who  stand  before  the  throne 
of  God  in  heaven  (Ezek.  i.  2,  3,  11  ;  x.  2,  6,  7  ;  Dan.  x.  5  ;  xii.  6  sq.).  Con- 
versely in  the  vision  in  Zech.  iii.  3,  the  high  priest  Joshua's  incaiiacity  to  inter- 
cede with  God  for  the  people  is  indicated  by  his  filthy  garments. 

(7)  [Baudissin  (i.  140  sq.)  favors  as  probable  Diestel's  attempted  explanation  of 
the  name  as  compounded  of  lU*  and  vN  with  the  signification  "strong  god,"  ac- 
cording to  which  Azazel  would  be  regarded  as  a  heathen  divinity  changed 
into  a  demon.     Against  this  see  Dillmann  s.l.] 

(8)  The  word  a7ro7ro,«7r«?of,  indeed,  signifies  not  that  which  is  dismissed  or  sent 
away,  but,  like  the  Latin  averruncus,  he  who  dismisses,  who  averts  =  ciAe^iKaKoc. 
We  are  not  exactly  justified  in  regarding  Azazel  as  Hengstenberg  does,  as  simply 
equivalent  to  Satan,  becanse  the  latter  does  not  appear  in  the  Pentateuch  ;  still 
the  idea  of  Azazel  is  at  all  events  akiii,  to  the  idea  of  Satan. 

(9)  YoT  {\\Q  altar  of  hnrnt-offeriiuj,  upon  which,  according  to  Lev.  vi.  2-6,  fire  was 
burning  continually,  is  intended  (see  Joma  iv.  3),  and  not,  as  Biihr  {e.g.  id.  p. 
069)  supposes,  the  altar  of  incense,  on  which  was  no  fuel. 

(10)  This  latter  sprinkling  evidently  concerned  not  the  mercy-seat,  but  the  place 
in  which  it  was,  i.e.  the  Holy  of  Holies.  Hence  the  first  and  single  sprinkling 
must  be  referred  (as  by  Kurtz,  idem,  p.  391,  and  Keil  in  I'co)  to  the  personal  puri- 
fication of  the  High  Priest  and  the  priesthood,  the  second  and  sevenfold  to  the 
purificnxtion  of  the  sanctuary,  which  liad  been  polluted  by  the  sinful  atmosphere 
of  the  priests.  (According  to  another  explanation,  the  former  portion  of  ver.  14 
is  to  be  regarded  merely  as  a  more  general  direction,  the  particulars  of  the  action 
being  delayed  to  the  second.  The  Vulgate  assumes  this  view  by  combining  the 
two  sentences  into  one.) 

(11)  Keil,  Kurtz,  and  Dillmann  justly  maintain  that  the  altar  of  hurnt-offering  is 
referred  to  in  Lev.  xvi.  18,  while  the  ordinary  explanation  of  the  passage  asserts, 
on  the  contrary,  that  the  altar  of  incense  within  the  sanctuary  is  intended  by 
"the  altar  that  is  before  the  Lord,"  and  consequently  regards  ver.  18  as  adding 
supplementary  particulars  to  ver.  16.  The  objections  raised  against  the  former 
view  by  Delitzsch  and  Hofmann  are  obviated  by  Kurtz,  p.  391  sq.  The  atone- 
ment for  the  altar  of  burnt-olTering  was  eflEected  by  applying  to  its  horns  the  blood 
pf  the  bullock  and  the  goat,  and  then  by  sprinkling  the'blood  upon  it  seven  times 


§  141.]  ANTIQUITY    or   THE    DAT    OF    ATONEMENT.  315 

with  the  finger.  (The  expression  V7;*  forbids  us  to  sujipose  a  sprinkling  of  the 
ground  before  the  altar,  which,  as  Kurtz  aptly  remarks,  is  explained  by  the  cir- 
cumstance, that  in  the  court  of  the  tabernacle  not  the  whole  space  but  only  the 
altar  is  the  place  of  Divine  revelation.)  The  first  act  again  refers  to  the  atone- 
ment for  the  priesthood  and  people,  the  second  to  the  purification  of  the  holy 
place. 

(12)  The  words  V?;;  1337  in  Lev.  xvi.  10  are  so  difficult  that  it  is  not  surprising 
that  they  have  been  rejected  as  an  unskilful  gloss  (as  by  Ritschl).  The  interpre- 
tation {e.g.  by  Klaiber),  '■'■ut  j>er  eumjiat  expiatio,'''  is  as  contrary  to  the  usage  of 
the  language  as  "  ad  expiandum  erim  sc.  Deum  ;""  neither  does  the  hitherto  admit- 
ted meaning,  "that  an  atonement  may  be  made  upon  him,"  agree  with  the 
prevailing  use  of   /i!  '134'.     Besides,  what  follows  ver.  21  is  no  act  of  expiation. 

(13)  All  victims  indeed  were,  so  far  as  they  were  without  blemish,  in  them- 
selves pure.  But  it  is  quite  another  case  when  the  animal  is  to  represent  the 
people,  not  with  their  uuatoned  transgressions,  but  as  having  been  already 
atoned  for.  Such  representation  can  only  take  place  by  effecting  an  act  of  ex- 
piation for  the  animal  itself. 

(14)  Not  merely  one  hand,  as  in  the  Semikha,  but  two,  to  make  the  transaction, 
as  Keil  remarks,  the  more  solemn  and  impressive. 

(15)  That  the  high  priest  might  have  immediate  information  of  the  arrival 
of  the  goat  at  its  destination,  a  kind  of  telegraphic  line  of  watchmen  on  eminences, 
to  give  signals  by  waving  cloths,  was  subsequently  made  from  Jerusalem  to  the 
wilderness  (Joma,  vi.  8  ;  comp.  also  Geiger,  Lesesti'iclceaus  der  Mischna,  p.  16  sq.). 

(16)  This,  according  to  Lev.  xvi.  24,  was  again  an  atonement  for  himself  and 
the  people,  because  even  after  the  great  act  of  atonement,  no  offerings  could  be 
made  without  the  atoning  element  present  in  every  burnt-offering. 

(17)  The  same  offerings  that  were  prescribed  for  the  first  day  of  the  seventh 
month,  viz.  a  bullock,  a  ram,  and  seven  yearling  lambs  for  a  burnt-offering,  with 
their  corresponding  food-offerings,  viz.  of  fine  flour  kneaded  with  oil,  three 
tenths  of  an  ephah  for  the  bullock,  two  tenths  for  the  ram,  and  one  tenth  for 
each  of  the  seven  lambs,  and  finally  a  he-goat  as  a  sin-offering.  These  sacrifices 
were,  as  at  other  festivals,  independent  of  the  continual  burnt-offering  with  which 
the  day  began  and  ended.  According  to  tradition  {M.  Joma.  vii.  4  ;  Maimoni- 
des,  iv.  2,  at  the  close),  the  high  priest,  after  the  evening  sacrifice,  again  put  on 
the  linen  garments,  to  fetch  from  the  Holy  of  Holies  the  incense  vessels  (pan 
and  vase)  which  had  been  left  there.  Thus  tradition  asserts  a  fourfold  entry  of 
the  High  Priest  into  the  Holy  of  Holies,  while  the  law.  Lev.  xvi.,  appears  to  direct 
him  to  enter  it  at  least  twice,  or,  according  to  the  most  natural  understanding  of 
ver.  12,  more  probably  three  times.  To  the  notion  of  a  fourth  entry,  however, 
nothing  decided  can  be  opposed.  When  it  is  said,  Heb.  ix.  7,  of  the  high  priest 
that  he  entered  once  every  year  into  the  holiest  place,  the  expression  is  to  be 
explained  by  its  contrast  to  (S(a  Trarrof  ;  it  stands  de  uno  avni  die  et  de  una  eodemque 
mlnisterio,  as  Deyling  (de  ingressu  siinimi  ponUf.,  etc.,  Ohs.  ii.  p.  183)  has  justly 
remarked.  If,  as  has  been  attempted,  the  functions  of  censing  and  of_  the  two- 
fold sprinkling  are  to  be  compressed  into  one  single  entrance  of  the  high  priest 
into  the  Holy  of  Holies,  recourse  must  be  had  to  unnatural  hypotheses. 


§141. 

Continuation :  Signification  of  the  Ritual  and  Antiquity  of  the  Day  of  Atonement. 

After  what  has  been  said  (§  127,  139)  on  atoning  sacrifice,  we  have  only  to  add 
what  follows  on  the  signification  of  the  ritual  of  the  Day  of  Atonement.  Of  course 
the  greatest  prominence  must  be  given  in  this  ritual  to  that  element  in  the  sacri- 
fice by  which  an  atonement  for  sin  is  effected,  and  to  that  portion  of  the  sacrificial 


316  THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISKAEL  AND  THE  THEOCKACY.    [§  141. 

transaction  which  specifically  subserves  this  end.  If  the  poena  mcaria  is  the  idea 
upon  wliich  the  sin-offering  is  founded,  it  is  here  if  anywhere  that  we  should  ex- 
pect to  find  it  most  distinctly  impressed.  But  nothing  at  all  is  said  of  substitu- 
tionary suffering  for  sin,  either  on  the  part  of  the  bullock  and  the  goat  whose  blood 
was  brought  into  the  Holy  of  Holies,  or  of  the  goat  which  was  dismissed  into  the 
wilderness,  the  slaying  of  the  sin-offering  being  spoken  of  in  the  fewest  possible 
words.  It  must  be  conceded  (as  has  been  already  done,  §  137,  note  13)  that  the 
subsequent  connection  of  this  idea  with  the  slaughter  of  the  victim  was  a  natural 
one  (1),— that  its  death  must  be  received  not  merely  as  the  means  of  obtaining 
the  blood,  but  also  as  an  act  of  satisfaction.  But  nowhere  in  the  laws  concerning 
sacrifice  can  we  find  a  foundation  for  the  dogma,  that  it  is  only  because  the  vic- 
tim accomjiUshes  something  for  the  offerer,  by  vicariously  suffering  the  penalty  of 
death,  that  its  life,  offered  in  the  blood,  can  serve  as  an  atonement  for  him  (2). 
On  the  contrary,  it  is  only  the  nature  of  the  victim,  its  purity  and  freedom  from 
blemish,  that  are  here  dwelt  on  (3).  The  connection  also  of  the  idea  of  the 
2Joena  mcaria  with  the  sending  away  of  the  second  goat,  by  later  Judaism,  rests 
entirely  on  misunderstanding.  For  the  sins  laid  upon  the  latter  were  those  al- 
myiilY  forgiven,  not  those  that  had  to  be  atoned  for,  unless  we  are  to  regard  them 
as  symbolically  punished  twice  over.  The  meaning  of  the  confession  of  sin  made 
(according  to  ver.  21)  over  the  second  goat  can  only  be  that  of  a  declaration,  that 
jmst  sins  being  forgiven,  are  now  done  away  with, — are  dismissed  and  relegated  to 
the  evil  spirit,  whose  realm  is  situate  beyond  all  connection  with  the  abode  of 
the  holy  people.  In  like  manner  the  bird,  set  free  at  the  purification  of  the 
leprous  man  and  house,  symbolically  takes  away  the  leprosy  with  him  (Lev.  xiv.  7, 
53).  It  is  also  an  error  to  see  in  the  second  goat  an  offering  to  Azazel  (4). 
Mosaism  acknowledges  no  evil  power,  independent  of  God,  whose  favor  must  be 
in  some  way  secured.  The  point  is  not  to  propitiate,  but  to  get  rid  of  Azazel 
— to  declare  to  him  that  the  nation,  now  that  it  has  obtained  forgiveness  of  sin, 
has  nothing  to  do  with  him,  the  patron  of  evil  (5).  Hengstenberg  ingeniously 
discovers  in  this  transaction  with  Azazel  a  reference  to  the  Typhonic  rites  of  the 
Egyptians.  Typhon  is  the  evil  god  who  dwells  especially  in  the  Libyan  desert, 
and  who  must  be  propitiated  in  times  of  pestilence.  But  while  the  Egyptian 
religion  held  it  necessary  to  enter  into  relations  with  the  powers  of  evil,  for  the 
sake  of  being  secure  from  their  enmity,  Israel  was  to  be  taught  by  the  rites  of 
the  Day  of  Atonement,  that  they  had  only  to  satisfy  the  holy  God  for  their  sins, 
and  that  when  this  was  done  the  power  of  evil  could  do  them  no  harm.  Diestel,  on 
the  other  hand,  endeavors  to  show  ("  Set-Ty2)hon,  Asasel,  und  Satan,"  ZeiYse/^r. 
filr  histor.  Theol.  1860,  p.  159  sq.)  that  the  notion  of  Typhon  as  the  evil  princi- 
ple is  much  later  than  the  times  of  Moses,  and  not  earlier  than  the  10th  or  11th 
century  before  Christ  (6). 

As  the  day  of  Atonement  formed  the  climax  of  what  the  Mosaic  ritual  was  able 
from  its  own  resources  to  effect  with  respect  both  to  extent  and  degree  of  atone- 
ment, it  closes  the  enactments  concerning  expiation,  and  may  from  this  point  of 
view  be  denominated  its  Suj^reme  Solemnity  {1).  Without  the  day  of  Atonement 
there  would  he  an  actual  gap  in  the  theocratic  ordinances.  The  law  whose  task  was 
the  restoration  of  a  holy  people,  but  which  was  at  the  same  time  continually  ex- 
posing the  opposition  in  which  this  people  stood  to  the  holy  God  through  theiv 


§  141.]  ANTIQUITY    OF   THE    DAY    OF   ATONEMENT.  317 

sinfulness,  could  not  be  without  an  institution  to  show  the  way  in  which  this  op- 
position might  be  reconciled  by  an  atonement  for  the  congregation,  and  also  rela- 
tively to  secure  such  reconciliation  ;  while  at  the  same  time,  being  weak  through 
the  flesh,  it  pointed  beyond  itself  to  that  perfect  atonement  whose  result  will  be 
the  restoration  of  the  truly  sanctified  people  of  God  (comp.  Zech.  iii.  9,  Heb.  ix. 
6  sq.)  (8).  Ewald  (Antiquities,  p.  361),  seeing  more  clearly  in  this  matter  than 
the  uncircumcised  criticism  of  the  ordinary  stamp,  designates  the  day  of  Atone- 
ment "  a  genuine  Mosaic  festival,  in  which,  more  than  in  any  other,  the  whole 
tendency  as  well  as  the  full  strictness  of  the  higher  religion  was  expressed." 
When  the  silence  of  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament  is  adduced  as  an  objection 
to  the  antiquity  of  tliis  festival,  the  doubtful  nature  of  such  an  argument  is 
evident  from  the  fact,  that  we  must  then,  to  be  consistent,  postpone  its  origin  till 
the  third  century  before  Christ ;  for  the  first  intimation  of  this  festival,  apart 
from  the  probable  allusion  to  it  in  Zech.  iii.  9,  is  found  in  Sirach  1.  5  (in  the 
description  of  the  splendid  appearance  of  the  high  priest  Simon  on  coming  out 
of  the  Holy  of  Holies),  and  in  3  Mace.  i.  11.  It  was  a  solemnity  carried  on  in 
silence,  and  except  in  the  fast  observed  by  the  people,  entirely  confined  to  the 
sanctuary,  and  thus  furnished  no  occasion  for  observation  (9).  At  most,  it  might 
have  been  mentioned  in  1  Kings  viii.  65,  and  2  Chron.  vii.  9,  etc.,  when  it  took 
place  during  the  seven  days'  festival  held  at  the  dedication  of  Solomon's  temple  ; 
an  essential  portion  of  this  solemnity  (the  purification  of  the  sanctuary)  was  per- 
formed, however,  in  the  very  act  of  dedication  (10). 

(1)  The  modern  Jewish  ceremony  called  the  KajiporetJi,  and  performed  on  the 
dayof  preparation  for  this  solemnity,  is  founded  entirely  on  the  idea  of  substitu- 
tion. A  man  takes  a  cock,  a  woman  a  hen  (of  a  white  color,  on  account  of  Isa.  i. 
18),  and  before  killing  strikes  three  times  on  its  forehead,  saying  the  words  : 

JDX  SxitJ'"',  "May  this  cock  [or  hen]  be  an  exchange  for  me,  may  it  be  in  my 
stead  !  May  it  be  a  propitiation  for  me  !  Let  this  cock  go  to  death,  but  may  I 
go  to  a  good  life  with  all  Israel !  Amen."  The  four  capital  punishments  of 
strangling,  beheading,  stoning,  and  burning  are  symbolized  on  the  cock.  See  the 
description  of  the  ceremony  in  Buxtorf's  Synagoga  judaica,  ed.  3,  cap.  xxv.  p. 
509  sqq. 

(2)  As  is  again  maintained  by  Kiiper  {Das  Priesterthum  des  Alien  Bundes,  1866, 
p.  125).  In  so  important  a  matter  we  are  fully  justified  in  appealing  to  the  argu- 
mentum  e  sileiitio. 

(3)  The  blood  is  regarded  as  a  means  of  atonement  which  God  has  giveji  to  his 
people  upon  the  altar  (Lev.  xvii.  11),  to  enable  him  who  by  reason  of  his  sinful- 
ness could  not  approach  God,  to  draw  near,  because  the  life  of  the  sinless  animal 
intervenes  to  atone  for  his  soul.  Wherein,  then,  lies  the  efficacy  of  the  expiation 
made  on  the  Day  of  Atonement  by  means  of  the  blood  of  the  victim  ?  Not  in  an 
increased  quantity  of  the  means  of  atonement.  Not  the  blood  of  a  hecatomb,  but 
only  the  blood  of  a  single  animal  is  needed  as  an  atonement  for  the  high  priest 
and  people.  It  is,  moreover,  characteristic  of  the  sin-offerings  in  general,  that 
they  are  all  limited  to  a  single  animal.  The  reason  probably  is,  that  the  speciality  of 
the  sin-ofEering  is  not  the  gift,  the  oblation  on  the  part  of  the  offerer,  in  which  case 
there  might  be,  as  the  burnt-offerings  show,  a  question  of  more  or  less,  but  the 
covering  prescribed  of  God,  by  a  means  which,  in  virtue  of  its  qvality  (as  substi- 
tuting a  soul  for  the  soul),  is  adapted  to  this  end,  but  which  by  reason  of  this  very 
quality  is  incapable  of  enhancement.  (In  this  manner  might  the  view  stated  by 
Kurtz,  be  completed.)     The  atonement  made  on  the  Day  of  Atonement  was  super- 


318   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.     [§  l-il. 

eminent,  because  on  this  occasion  the  blood  was  brought  as  near  to  God  as  possible, 
before  His  throne,  and  indeed  within  tlie  veil,  into  that  central  seat  of  His 
abode  at  other  times  unapproachable,  thus  making  satisfaction  for  the  people  in 
the  very  place  where  the  accusing  law  within  the  ark  testified  against  them.  The 
peoole,  knowing  themselves  to  be  accepted  with  favor  through  the  atoning  blood, 
were  assured  of  the  continued  dwelling  of  God  in  the  midst  of  them,  and  there- 
with of  the  continuance  of  their  state  of  grace,  while  the  ordinary  intercourse 
effected  in  worship  between  God  and  the  congregation  received  a  fresh  consecra- 
tion from  tills  centre,— the  blood  taken  into  the  Holy  of  Holies  serving  for  the 
cleansing  of  even  the  outmost  parts  of  the  sanctuary. 

(4)  This  explanation  is  inadmissible,  even  when  the  offering  is  taken  in  the 
broader  meaning  of  a  gift  by  which,  according  to  Kabbinical  views,  the  devil 
(Sammael)  was  to  be  induced  not  to  render  the  sacrifice  offered  by  Israel  as  an 
atonement  inefficacious,  and  to  become  not  an  accuser  of,  but  an  intercessor  for  the 
people  (see  Eisenmenger,  EntdecJctes  Judenthum,  ii.  p.  155  sq.  ;  Biihr,  id.  p.  686. 

(5)  If  the  later  idea  of  Satan  is  unjustifiably  transferred  to  Azazel,  the  notion 
that  lie  can  no  longer  accuse  Israel  before  God,  nor  provoke  God's  wrath  and 
chastisement  against  them,  would  have  to  be  added  (see  Kurtz,  id.  p.  402).  _  Be- 
sides, the  second  goat,  considered  in  itself,  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  sacrifice. 
Both  goats  are  indeed  (Lev.  xvi.  5)  said  to  be  riNCSnS,  but  this  only  denotes  in  a 
general  manner  the  purpose  for  which  the  two  are  together  brought  forward,  while 
in  vers.  9  and  15  the  first  goat  which  is  slain  is  specially  called  rif^^n,  but  not  the 
second.  The  latter,  on  whom  the  result  of  the  atonement  just  offered  is  fulfilled, 
takes  the  place  of  the  slain  goat,  and  is,  as  it  were,  and  as  it  is  often  designated, 
the  hircus  redivivus.  Jewish  tradition  also  recognized  this  relation  between  the 
two  goats,  by  prescribing  {Joma,  vi.  1)  that  they  should  be  alike  in  color,  size, 
and  value. 

(6)  [In  the  first  edition  it  was  said,  in  accordance  with  the  article  "Versohn- 
ungstag"  in  Herzog :  The  requirement  that  the  man  who  led  the  goat  into  the 
wilderness  must  bathe  before  returning  into  the  camp  is  natural,  because  the 
wilderness  is  the  region  of  impurity.  The  same  reason  was  assigned  in  respect  to 
the  man  charged  with  the  duty  of  burning  the  flesh  of  the  sin-offering,  since 
this  also  took  place  outside  the  camp.  Kurtz  has  correctly  remarked  that  the 
supreme  holiness  of  the  day  demanded  that  even  the  mere  possibility  of  Levitical 
uncleanness,  wliich  might  easily  take  place  outside  the  camp,  should  be  guarded 
against.  On  the  other  hand,  it  may  certainly  be  maintained,  as  Riehm  has  done, 
that  there  is  no  evidence  that  residence  outside  the  camp  was  regarded  as  bring- 
ing uncleanness  ;  for  the  Israelites  went  out  of  the  cainp  every  day  to  gather 
manna,  and  did  not  thereby  become  unclean.  Still,  there  is  no  reason  for  ex- 
plaining, with  Riehm  (p.  78  sq.),  the  purification  required  of  the  priest  who  had 
charge  of  the  burning,  on  the  ground  that  the  flesh  of  the  sin-offering  was  like 
him  who  was  under  the  ban,  an  object  of  the  destroying  wrath  of  God.  Accord- 
ing to  Lev.  vi.  27  (comp.  §  139),  a  garment  sprinkled  with  the  hlood  of  the  sin- 
offering  must  be  washed,  and  this  even,  on  Riehm's  view,  on  account  of  the  holiness 
of  the  blood.  Now,  from  the  circumstance  that  the  supreme  holiness  of  the 
flesh  of  the  sin-offering  required  the  subsequent  purification  of  the  priest  who  had 
burned  it,  there  is  no  ground  for  the  inference  that  the ^es7i  of  the  sin-offering 
was  lioly  in  any  way  different  from  the  hlood  of  the  offering.  Who  that  reads 
Lev.  vi.  27  could  understand  the  holiness  of  the  flesh  of  the  sin-offering  in  a 
sense  entirely  different  from  the  holiness  of  the  blood  of  the  sin-offering  ?] 

(7)  The  circumstance  that  this  day  did  not  bear  the  name  Jn  is  discussed  in 
§  144  on  the  Sacred  Seasons. 

(8)  The  need  of  such  an  institution  is  especially  seen  with  respect  to  the  year  of 
jubilee,  which,  without  it,  would  appear  in  the  national  life  without  cause,  and 
would  lack  such  a  close  of  the  preceding  period  as  the  Divine  holiness  demands. 

(9)  It  is  also  j)robable  that  this  solemnity,  like  other  institutions  of  worship, 
fell  for  a  long  period  into  desuetude.     [Against  Wellhausen,  according  to  whom 


§    142.]  THE    LEVITICAL   PUKIEICATIONS.  319 

(i.  113  sqq.)  the  Day  of  Atonement  was  not  instituted  until  after  the  year  444, 
comp.  Dillmann,  p.  524  sqq.,  and  Delitzsch,  "The  Day  of  Atonement,"  in 
Luthardt's  Zeitschrift,  1880.] 

(10)  The  Day  of  Atonement  is  omitted  in  the  prophetic  institutions  of  Ezekiel, 
while  a  compensation  for  it  is  given  in  the  enactment  (xlv.  18-20)  of  a  cleansing 
of  the  sanctuary,  "  for  every  one  that  erreth  and  is  simple,"  at  the  beginning  of 
the  year,  viz.  on  the  first  and  seventh  of  Nisan,  and  therefore  preparatory  to  the 
Passover.  (Ezekiel  generally  includes  tlic  sin-offerings  among  his  institutions 
of  worship,  while  other  prophets,  on  the  com  vary,  when  speaking  of  Divine  ser- 
vice in  the  times  of  redemption,  no  longer  make  mention  of  sin-offermgs.)  A 
collection  of  the  most  important  traditional  enactments,  whose  validity  may  be 
assumed,  for  the  later  period  of  the  second  temple,  may  be  seen  in  the  article 
quoted,  p.  456  sqq.  On  the  form  assumed  by  the  celebration  of  the  Day  of 
Atonement,  since  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  see  Orach.  CJuijim,  translated  by 
Lowe,  p.  150  sqq.  ;  Buxtorf,  idem^i  cap,  25  sq.  ;  Schroder,  SaUungen  unci 
Gehrduche  des  talmvdisch-rabhinischen  JudentTimns,  p.  130  sqq.  Comp.  also  the 
article  Kol  Nidre  in  Herzog's  Iteal-EncyMop.  viii.  p.  24  sq. 

APPENDIX  :    PURIFICATIONS  (1). 

§  142. 

1.  The  Levitical  Purifications. 

The  Israelite,  as  pertaining  to  the  holy  people,  was  to  be  clean  ("^1^^)  ;  and 
therefore  when  he  had,  though  unavoidably,  incurred  uncleanness,  or  come  in 
contact  with  anything  unclean,  and  so  become  ^?^,  he  was  to  restore  his  state  of 
cleanness  by  a  special  act.  Everything  relating  to  sexual  conditions — generation, 
birth,  etc. —  or  to  death  and  corruption  was  defiling  (Lev.  xii.  and  xv.).  In  the 
latter  respect,  not  only  was  uncleanness  contracted  by  means  of  the  human  corpse 
and  all  connected  with  it, — the  grave,  the  house  in  which  one  had  died,  nay, 
even  every  open  vessel  in  it,  Lev.  xix.  11,  15-16, — but  also  by  the  carcass  of  an 
unclean  animal,  Lev.  v.  3,  xi.  8,  and  the  body  of  a  clean  animal  if  it  had  not  met 
its  death  by  being  properly  slaughtered,  xi.  39  sq.  Finally,  the  disease  of  leprosy, 
eh.  xiii.  sq.,  which  was  regarded  as  a  process  of  gradual  corruption,  rendered  the 
man  visited  therewith  unclean,  the  leper  being  designated,  Num.  xii.  12,  as  one 
like  a  dead  man,  and  the  healing  of  a  leper,  2  Kings  v.  7,  as  a  making  alive.  The 
law.  Lev.  xiv.  33  sq.,  also  gives  directions  concerning  a  house-leprosy,  the  nature 
of  which  is  not  clearly  known  (2).  The  chief  means  of  purification  was  running 
neater,  which  is  itself  a  symbol  of  life,  and  therefore  called  living  water  (D"n  0;^, 
Lev.  xiv.  5,  50,  Num.  xix.  17,  etc.).  In  uncleanness  of  the  lower  degree,  the 
washing  of  the  unclean  person  or  thing  (if  the  latter  were  not  of  a  brittle  nature, 
in  which  case  it  was  to  be  destroyed)  and  separation  till  sunset  were  sufiacient  (see 
Lev.  xi.  23  sq.,xv.  4  sq.,xvi.  sq.)  ;  the  bringing  of  a  sin-offering  being,  under 
certain  circumstances,  also  required  (v.  3).  In  uncleanness  of  the  higher  degree, 
the  separation  lasted  seven,  or  in  some  cases  fourteen  days  ;  and  under  certain 
circumstances  a  sin-offering  of  birds  was  added  (xiv.  13-15.)  During  the 
march  through  the  desert,  all  who  had  contracted  uncleanness  were  banished 
from  the  camp.  On  the  other  hand,  in  cases  of  uncleanness  incurred  through 
contact  with  a  dead  body,  a  certain  wa-fcr  of  sprinUing  was  applied,  called  H^J  '0 
<water  against  uncleanness),  which  is  it-df  designated  as  a  sin-offering.  Num.  xix. 


320  THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISEAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  143. 

9,  17.  It  was  prepared  as  follows :— A  red  heifer  without  blemish,  which  had  as 
yet  borne  no  yoke,  was  slaughtered  without  the  camp  in  the  presence  of  the 
priest  (3)  ;  its  blood  was  then  sprinkled  seven  times  toward  the  sanctuary.  It, 
viz.  its  flesh,  blood,  skin,  and  dung,  together  with  cedar  wood,  scarlet  wool,  and 
hyssop,  was  then  cast  into  the  fire  and  burnt.  The  three  last-named  ingredients 
appear  also  at  the  purification  of  the  leper,  Lev.  xiv.  6.  Every  person  officiating 
at  this  ceremony  was  unclean  till  evening.  The  ashes  obtained  were  laid  up  in  a 
clean  place  without  the  camp,  and  every  dwelling  in  which  there  had  been  a 
corpse,  together  with  all  the  persons  and  vessels  therein,  was  purified  on  the  third 
and  on  the  seventh  days,  by  means  of  a  bunch  of  hyssop  dipped  into  water  into 
which  some  of  these  ashes  had  been  cast.  The  red  color  in  these  symbols  of 
purification  must  not  be  explained  (as  by  Hengsteuberg)  as  a  symbol  of  sin,  on  the 
ground  that  red  was  in  Egypt  the  symbol  of  Typhon  ;  nor  the  red  heifer  com- 
bined, as  by  Schelling  {PMlosoiMe  der  Offenbarung,  ii.  p.  136),  with  the  red  bul- 
lo«k  to  be  sacrificed  to  Typhon  (Plutarch,  delg.  et  Osir.  cap.  31).  Isa.  i.  18  proves 
nothing  in  this  matter,— red  there  certainly  referring,  as  the  color  of  blood,  to 
deeds  of  blood  (see  vers.  15  and  21),  while  the  death  with  whose  expiation  the  red 
heifer  was  concerned  is  not  represented  as  blood-shedding,  but  as  corruption. 
Red  is  rather  the  color  of  life  and  of  vital  energy  ;  scarlet  the  color  of  splendour  ; 
the  animal  is  a,  female,  the  sex  that  brings  forth,  properly  representing  life  (comp. 
Gen.  iii.  5).  Cedar  as  the  most  durable  of  woods,  is  likewise  a  symbol  of  incor- 
ruption  ;  while  great  purifying  power  was  in  ancient  times  always  ascribed  to 
hyssop.  Thus  the  water  of  purification  is  an  infusion,  strengthened  by  elements 
which  symbolized  vital  energy,  incorrujition,  andfurity  (4). 

(1)  Compare  Sommer,  Bill.  Abhandl.  p.  200  sqq.  ;  Kurtz  "  on  the  Symbolical 
Dignity  of  tlie  Rite  prescribed  in  Num.  xix.  for  the  Annulling  of  the  Uncleanness 
of  Death,"  in  UUmann's  Studien,  1846,  No.  3,  p.  629  sqq.  [Kohler  i.  p.  409  sqq.  ; 
Kamphausen's  article  "  Reinigkeit  unci  Reiniguugen  "  in  Riehm]. 

(2)  Some  understand  by  this  the  injury  done  to  walls  by  dry-rot,  Avhile  others, 
on  the  contrary,  think  a  transference  of  human  leprosy  to  the  walls  of  a  house 
possible. 

(3)  Not  of  the  High  Priest,  who  might  not  come  in  contact  with  anything  relat- 
ing to  death  or  corruption. 

(4)  With  respect  to  the  ceremonies  by  which  the  purification  of  a  recovered  leper 
(Lev.  xiv.  1-32)  or  of  a  leprous  house  (vers.  33-57)  was  effected,  the  meaning  of  the 
essential  points  is  determined  l)y  what  has  already  been  said ;  compare  also  what 
is  remarked  on  this  subject  in  §  140  sq. 

§143. 
2,  Acts  of  Purification  for  removing  the  Suspicion  of  Guilt. 

Of  an  entirely  different  character  were  those  acts  of  purification  which  related 
to  the  denial  of  susj)ected  crimes,  viz.  adultery  and  murder. 

Among  these  are  (1st)  Wxa  jealousy-offering,  and  the  drinhing  of  the  water  of  curs- 
ing, treated  of  Num.  v.  11-31,  and  already  mentioned  in  §  104.  1,  where  a  state- 
of  the  marriage  laws  is  given  (1).  This  jealousy-offering,  which  a  husband  had  to 
present  to  the  priest  when  he  placed  his  wife,  whom  he  suspected  of  adultery, 
before  the  altar,  consisted  of  larley  meal  toithoitt  the  addition  of  oil  and  franhincense. 


§  143.]  PURIFICATION    FOR   REMOVING   SUSPICION".  321 

This  offering  does  not,  however,  as  Biihr  {Symbolik,  ii.  p.  44G)  supposes,  concern 
the  husband,  but  the  wife,  as  ver.  15  plainly  says,  "  her  offering  for  her"  (2).  It 
is  called,  ver.  15,  ''  an  offering  of  memorial,  bringing  iniquity  to  remembrance  ;" 
i.e.,  it  is  to  bring  the  iniquity  of  the  wife  to  the  remembrance  of  God,  that  He 
may  effect  its  detection.  This  offering,  even  though  it  be  forced  upon  the  woman, 
IS  purely  one  of  supplication.  There  is  in  this  case  no  question  of  any  atonement 
0?2),  for  sin  is  not  to  be  covered,  but  discovered  (3).  The  nature  of  the 
offering  must  correspond  with  the  case  in  question  ;  the  capacity  in  which  the 
offerer  appears  before  God  must  be  impressed  upon  it.  This  offering,  which  is 
composed  of  the  meanest  kind  of  food-offering,  is  not,  however,  intended  (as  Keil, 
Archdol.  \.  p.  299,  explains  it)  as  a  symbol  of  the  kind  of  life  hitherto  led  by  the 
woman,  for  the  Divine  judgment  concerning  this  is  yet  to  be  obtained  (4).  On  the 
contrary,  without  involving  any  prejudging  of  the  past,  it  exhibits  in  an  entirely 
objective  manner  the  condition  in  which  the  offerer  is  placed  (5).  As  an  accused 
person  appears  before  the  tribunal  in  mourning  attire,  without  the  question  of  his 
guilt  or  innocence  being  in  any  way  affected,  so  may  this  sacrifice  be  said  to  exhibit 
a  merely  gloomy  cliaracter.  Hence  its  material  was  not  fine  wheat  flour,  but  the 
less  esteemed  'barley  meal  (4).  The  absence  of  the  oil  and  incense,  the  usual 
accompaniments  of  the  Minhha,  was  designed,  according  to  our  view,  merely  to 
express  still  more  emphatically  the  gloomy  nature  of  the  offering,  which  was  to 
be  neither  savory  nor  sweet-scented  (comp.  §  125,  Conclusion). 

The  further  proceedings  were  as  follows  :  The  priest  placed  the  accused  before 
the  Lord,  by  leading  her  before  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  in  the  court  of  the  tab- 
ernacle. He  then  took  holy  water  in  an  earthen  vessel,  i.e.  probably  some  of  the 
water  kept  for  sacred'  purposes  in  the  laverin  the  court  (Ex.  xxx.  18)  (5),  and 
placed  therein  dust  from  the  floor  of  the  tabernacle.  He  then  uncovered  the  head  of 
the' woman,  placed  the  meat-offering  in  her  hands,  and  himself  holding  the  vessel 
in  which  was  the  "  curse-causing  water  of  pain,"  invoked  a  curse  upon  her,  to  the 
effect  that  if  she  were  guiltless  she  should  be  free  from  the  effects  of  the  water  of 
cursing,  but  that  if  she  were  guilty,  this  water  should  enter  into  her  body  "to 
cause  her  belly  to  swell  and  her  thigh  to  rot"  (6).  The  woman  having  taken  the 
curse  upon  her  by  twice  saying  :  Amen,  the  priest  wrote  the  curses  (according  to 
Josephus,  Ant.  iii.  11.  16,  merely  the  name  of  God)  upon  a  jiaper,  or,  according 
to  tradition,  upon  a  roll  of  parchment  (Sicpdepa,  Josejihus,  comp.  Sota,  ii.  4),  and 
wiped  out  the  writing  with  the  water  of  cursing.  He  then  took  the  offering  of 
jealousy  out  of  the  woman's  hand,  waved  it  before  the  Lord,  and  burnt  a  handful 
of  it  upon  the  altar  as  a  memorial  (see  §  129),  and  gave  the  woman  the  water  to 
drink. 

The  uncovering  of  the  head  (by  removing  the  veil  and  unbinding  the  hair)  did 
not  indicate  (as  Theodoret  explains  it)  that  all  things  are  naked  and  open  before 
God,  but  denoted  the  defilement  which  the  woman  had  contracted  in  virtue  of  the 
accusation  brought  against  her,  the  veiling  of  the  head  being  the  token  of  female 
modesty.  Anearthen  vessel  was  employed,  as  being  of  little  value.  The  mingling 
of  dust  in  the  water  may  be  explained  (as  first  suggested  by  Bahr,  idem,  p.  443) 
by  Gen.  iii.  i4,  comp.  with  Ps.  Ixxii.  9,  Mic.  vii.  17,  Isa.  xlix.  23,  according  to 
which  passages,  to  eat  dust  was  a  general  mark  of  meriting  a  curse,  or  of  the  deep- 
est shame  and  humiliation.     Holy  water  and  dust  fi'om  the  floor  of  the  sanctuary 


323   THE  COVEKANT  OE  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AXD  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  143. 

were  used,  to  enhance  the  efficacy  of  the  potion,  which  thus  appeared  all  the  more 
to  be  the  vehicle  of  the  Divine  holiness,  whose  property  is  to  destroy  all  that  is 
sinful.  In  virtue  of  the  efficacy  imparted  to  the  water  by  the  words  of  the  oath, 
and  by  the  blotting  out  of  the  written  curse,  it  was  called  the  "  curse-causing 
water  of  pain"  (7).  The  entrance  of  the  curse  into  the  inmost  parts  of  the  body 
was  to  be  eflEected  by  drinking  (comp,  the  expression  Ps.  cix,  18).  We  say 
effected,  not  merely  symbolized.  For,  according  to  the  simple  meaning  of  the 
words  of  ver.  27,  the  water  is  to  be  regarded  not  merely  as  the  symbol  and  pledge, 
but  as  the  actual  vehicle  of  the  Divine  curse  (8).  Any  element  of  magic  is  ex- 
cluded by  the  ethical  element  which  was  added,  inasmuch  as  the  effect  of  the 
potion  was  promoted  by  the  anxiety  of  an  evil  conscience  in  the  case  of  the  guilty 
woman,  and  averted  by  the  gladness  of  a  good  conscience  in  that  of  the  inno- 
cent (9). 

(2d)  The  purification  of  a  community  from  the  suspicion  of  hlood-guiltiness,  when 
a  slain  man  was  found  in  the  neighborhood,  and  the  murderer  could  not  be  dis- 
covered. For  this  case  the  law  (Deut.  xxi.  1-9)  prescribed  that  the  elders  of  the 
city  should  lead  a  young  heifer,  which  had  not  yet  been  wrought  wdth,  into  a 
valley  in  which  was  a  brook,  and  should  there,  in  the  presence  of  the  priests, 
break  its  neck,  and  wash  their  hands  over  the  slain  heifer,  saying  :  "Our  hands 
have  not  shed  this  blood,  neither  have  our  eyes  seen  it.  Be  merciful,  O  Lord,  unto 
Thy  people  Israel,  whom  Thou  hast  redeemed,  and  lay  not  innocent  blood  in  the 
midst  of  Thy  people  Israel,"  i.e.  let  not  this  blood  shed  in  the  midst  of  us  be  laid 
to  our  charge,  etc.  The  ohject  of  this  transaction  was  not  an  atonement.  There  was 
here  no  question  of  a  transgression  committed  through  ignorance  ;  and  the  ex- 
pression denoting  the  slaughter  of  the  victim  is  not  £3n^,  but  ^"^J^.  The  blood 
shed  was  to  be  removed  from  the  midst  of  the  people,  and  this  was  effected  by 
the  symbolical  infliction  of  capital  punishment  upon  the  heifer.  This  was  to  pro- 
ceed from  the  elders,  because,  according  to  ch.  xix.  12,  it  was  upon  them  that 
the  duty  of  inquiring  into  mortal  injuries  in  general  devolved.  Here,  then,  the 
Idea  of  a  poena  vicar ia  applies  :  satisfaction  is  to  be  made  to  Divine  justice  by  a 
symbolical  infliction  of  punishment,  which  thus  serves,  ver.  8,  for  a  covering  of 
blood-guiltiness  to  the  community  in  question.  The  elders,  by  the  act  of  washing 
hands,  deny,  in  the  name  of  the  community,  all  participation  in  the  mortal  injury 
which  has  been  done  ;  perhaps  the  brook  was  to  carry  away  also  the  blood  of  the 
heifer.  The  priests  do  not  in  this  instance  officiate  as  mediators  of  atonement, 
but,  ver.  5,  merely  as  witnesses  and  judicial  functionaries. 

(1)  Compare  my  article,  "  Eiferopfer,"  in  Herzog's  Beal-EncyUop.  xix.  p. 
472  sq.  An  explanation  of  tliis  offering,  as  well  as  the  subsequent  practice,  is 
given  in  the  Talmudic  treatise  Sota,  edited,  with  an  ample  commentary,  by  Wag- 
enseil,  l(i74  ;  com]iare  also  Selden,  Uxor  hebraica,  iii.  chs.  13-15  ;  Lund,  Jiidische 
Ileiligthanicr,  p.  701  sq. 

(2)  I  So  also  Kohler,  i.  p.  408.]  It  was,  according  to  ver.  25,  taken  out  of 
the  hand  of  the  woman.  The  husband  necessarily  furnished  the  materials,  both 
because  the  wife,  as  such,  had  no  property  of  her  own,  and  especially  because 
the  whole  transaction  originated  with  him,  and  was  performed  without  regard  to 
the  consent  of  the  wife. 

(3)  An  offering  in  a  general  sense  was,  however,  needed,  because,  as  Bahr  {id., 
p.  445)  quite  correctly  states  it,  according  to  the  Mosaic  ordinances  no  one  who 
approaclied  tlie  Lord  in  Ills  sanctuary  for  any  purpose  was  to  appear  empty  (Ex. 


§    144.]  SURVEY   OF   THE   SACRED    SEASONS.  323 

xxiii.  15,  xxxiv.  20),  i.e.  without  au  offoriug.  Hence  the  presentation  of  an 
offering  was  to  precede  the  drinking  of  the  water  of  cursing,  as  an  introduction 
to  the  whole  transaction. 

(4)  Comp.  Hos.  iii.  3,  where  barley  appears  as  the  food  becoming  an  adulter- 
ess. The  Jewish  explanation  goes  so  far  as  to  say  {Sota,  ii.  1)  that,  because  the 
act  of  the  adulteress  placed  her  on  a  level  with  the  cattle,  her  offering  also 
must  consist  of  the  food  of  the  cattle.  In  this  case,  however,  the  woman  would 
be  assumed  to  be  guilty,  which  is  out  of  the  question. 

(5)  So  Onkelos,  and  Sota,  ii.  2  ;  while  the  LXX,  on  the  contrary,  translate  v6cjf) 
Kaflapbv  (,uv,  and  thus  understand  it  simply  as  pure  spring  water. 

(6)  During  the  transaction,  time  was  still  given  to  the  woman  to  confess  ;  a 
pause  is  probably  to  be  assumed  after  ver.  20. 

(7)  The  expression  D"!9  ^^  to  be  referred,  as  is  shown  especially  by  ver.  27,  not 
to  the  bitter  taste,  but  to  the  pernicious  effects  of  the  water.  The  Rabbins,  on 
the  contrary,  understood  the  word  literally,  and  disputed  whether  anything  bitter 
was  mingled  with  the  water,  or  whether  it  first  acquired  a  bitter  taste  in  the 
mouth  of  the  adulteress  who  drank  of  it. 

(8)  Keil  justly  remarks  {idem,  p.  301)  that  this  water  is  said  to  acquire,  through 
the  word  and  power  of  God,  a  supernatural  power,  which,  though  not  to  be  con- 
ceived of  as  magical,  really  produces,  through  its  influence  on  the  mind,  perni- 
cious effects  upon  the  body  of  the  guilty,  and  is  harmless  to  the  innocent. 

(9)  For  later  traditions,  see  the  article  quoted,  p.  475  sq. 

ni.— THE  SACRED  SEASONS. 

THE  SACRED  SEASONS  IN  GENERAL  (1) 

§  1-^4. 

Survey  of  the  Sacred  Seasons  and  their  Designations. 

The  sanctification  of  the  course  of  time  in  general  was  effected  by  the  morning 
and  evening  sacrifice,  TpJ^  nViJ.'  (of  which  we  spoke,  §  131).  Besides  this,  how- 
ever, special  times  were  also  selected,  which,  establishing  by  a  regular  interchange 
of  labor  and  rest  a  rule  of  natural  life  corresponding  with  a  need  of  human  nature, 
offered  at  the  same  time  a  substratum  for  the  communion  taking  place  in  worship 
between  God  and  His  people.  Such  sacred  seasons,  as  appointed  in  the  Penta- 
teuch, were,  1st,  The  seventh  day  of  the  week,  or  Sabtath  ;  2d,  The  new  moons, — 
the  first-born,  as  it  were,  among  the  days  of  the  month.  These  were  of  subordi- 
nate importance,  with  the  exception  of  the  seventh  new  moon,  which  was  invested 
with  a  festal  character,  and  bore  the  name  of  nj,M"iri  DV,  the  Day  of  Trumpets. 
dd,  The  three  festival  pilgrimages,  when  the  whole  congregation  assembled  at  the 
sanctuary,  viz.  :  a.  the  Passover,  with  which  the  annual  cycle  of  festivals  com- 
menced in  spring,  celebrated  in  the  first  month  of  the  Mosaic  year  (Ex.  xii.  2), 
on  the  evening  of  the  14th  Abib  or  Nisan,  with  the  seven  days  of  unleavened 
bread,  kept  from  the  loth  day  of  the  same  month  onward  ;  h.  the  Feast  of  Weeks 
(Pentecost),  seven  weeks  later  ;  c.  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  from  the  15th  day  of 
the  seventh  month  onward.  4:th,  The  seventh  month  Tisri,  besides  being  distin- 
guished, as  above  remarked,  by  the  festal  character  of  its  new  moon,  included 
also  the  Day  of  Atonement  (D'"!i33n  DV).  In  this  month  the  ^"y^il  (Lev.  xxiii.  36), 
which  took  place  on  the  eighth  day,  i.e.  after  the  seven  days'  celebration  of  the 
Feast  of  Tabernacles  (the  22d  day  of  the  month),  terminated  the  festal  half  of  the 


324:  THE  COVENANT  01^'  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.      [§  145. 

year,  tith,  Every  seventh  year  was  also  sacred  as  the  sahhatical  year,  and  every 
seventh  sabbatical  year  as  the  year  ofjulilee.  The  laws  concerning  sacred  seasons 
in  general  are  contained  in  Ex.  xxiii.  10-17,  Lev.  xxiii.  and  xxv.,  Num.  xxviii., 
xxix.,  and  Deut.  xvi.  In  Deuteronomy  as  well  as  in  Exodus,  only  the  three  festi- 
val pilgrimages  are  mentioned  ;  while  the  sabbatical  solemnities  (except  in  the 
Decalogue,  v.  13  sq.)  and  the  new  moons  are  passed  over  in  silence.  This  circum- 
stance is  explained  by  the  consideration  that  it  is  in  these  festival  pilgrimages 
alone  that  stress  is  laid  upon  that  oneness  of  the  sanctuary  which  it  is  the  special 
object  of  Deuteronomy  in  its  enactments  concerning  worship  to  inculcate  (see 
Deut.  xvi.  5-7,  11,  15,  16)  (3). 

The  most  general  designation  of  the  sacred  seasons  which  have  an  appointed 
order  of  succession  is  n'lri]  nj?)?, — "^V)"^  signifying  an  appointed  time  in  general ; 
comp.  Num.  xxviii.  3.  The  expression  is  also  used  in  the  superscription,  Lev. 
xxiii.  3,  of  all  holy  days,  including  the  Sabbath,  on  which  a  holy  convocation 
(tyip  *<"lpn)  took  place  ;  and  therefore,  in  Ezek.  xlvi.  11  (see  Hitzig  in  loco),  of 
the  new  moons  also,  for  these  were,  according  to  prophetic  legislation,  to  be  days 
of  holy  convocation  (Ezek.  xlvi.  3,  comp.  with  Isa.  Ixvi.  33),  which  they  were 
not  as  yet  in  the  Pentateuch.  More  frequently,  however,  the  expression  D'l^'iO 
is  used  in  a  narrower  sense,  and  restricted,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  new  moons 
and  Sabbaths,  to  the  days  of  assembling  at  the  annual  festivals  (Lev.  xxiii.  4  ; 
Ezek.  xlvi.  9  ;  3  Chron.  viii.  13,  xxxi.  3),  Still  narrower  is  the  meaning  of  the 
word  Jn,  which  is  the  usual  name  for  the  three  festival  pilgrimages,  as  the  rejoic- 
ing festivals  of  the  year.  The  name  seems  to  have  arisen  from  the  cheerful  dances 
performed  at  these  seasons  (see  Judg.  xxi.  19-31  ;  compare  also,  in  illustration, 
Ex.  xxxii.  5  with  ver.  19),  the  verbal  root  JJH  properly  meaning  to  turn  in  a  circle 
(3).  Hence  this  word  could  not  be  used  of  the  solemn  Day  of  Atonement,  which 
subsequently  bore  only  the  name  of  the  Day,  k.  ff.  **?''"',  or  the  Great  Bay, 
K3"1  KOr  (4). 

(1)  Compare  my  article  Festivals  of  the  Ancient  Hehrews  in  Herzog's  Eeal-EncyMop. 
[Riehm's  art.  "  Feste"  in  his  Handioorterhuch.'\ 

(3)  On  other  differences  in  the  laws  concerning  the  feasts,  see  the  separate  dis- 
cussions concerning  them. 

(3)  In  Arabic,  the  word  hhaggun  is  the  name  by  which  the  pilgrimages  to  Mecca 
are  denoted. 

(4)  Tliat  the  expression  Jn  is  already  used,  as  is  frequently  asserted,  in  the  Old 
Testament,  k.  k^.  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  as  the  greatest  of  the  rejoicing  festi- 
vals of  the  year,  cannot  be  inferred  with  any  certainty  from  1  Kings  viii.  3,  Ezek. 
xlv.,  3  Chron.  vii.  8,  since  the  reference  made  in  these  passages  to  the  Feast  of 
Tabernacles  naturally  arises  from  the  context.  Judg.  xxi.  19  may,  moreover,  be 
understood  also  of  the  Passover.  Comp,  Hengstenberg,  Genuineness  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch, ii.  p.  66. 

§145. 

Reasons  which  determine  the  Times  of  the  Feasts. 

The  number  seven,  which  from  Gen.  ii.  3  sq.  onward  is  the  sign  of  Divine  per- 
fection (1),  forms  the  fundamental  type  for  the  regulation  of  the  sacred  seasons. 
It  directly  determines  the  order  of  the  sallatical  seasons  (§  147  sq.),  and  also  ex- 


§145,]       REASONS  WHICH  DETERMINE  THE  TIMES  OF  THE  FEASTS.  325 

erts  an  influence  upon  the  order  of  the  feasts  ;  for,  first,  the  duration  of  two  of 
the  principal  ones  is  (as  appears  from  §  144)  for  seven  days  ;  secondly,  in  the 
annual  cycle  of  festivals,  the  seven  weeks  between  Passover  and  Pentecost  branch 
out  into  a  special  circle  of  feasts  :  and,  finally,  the  entire  number  of  days  of  holy 
convocation,  i.e.  of  chief  days  of  feasts,  amounts  to  just  seven  (the  Passover  and 
Feast  of  Tabernacles  having  each  two  days  of  convocation).  Of  the  five  yearly 
festivals,  the  three  festal  pilgrimages,  Passover,  Pentecost,  and  Tabernacles, 
have  both  an  agrai'ian  and  an  historical  significance,  but  the  latter  does  not  occur 
in  the  Old  Testament  in  the  case  of  the  Feast  of  Pentecost  (2).  The  Day  of 
Atonement  had,  notwithstanding  its  special  and  particular  significance,  an  unmis- 
takable relation  to  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  :  as  the  Passover  introduced  the  har- 
vest festival  of  unleavened  bread,  so  the  Day  of  Atonement  led  to  the  supreme  re- 
joicing of  the  year  in  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  This  position  of  the  Day  of  Atone- 
ment indicates  that  only  a  people  reconciled  to  God  has  a  right  to  rejoice  in  the 
blessing  with  which  He  has  crowned  the  year  ;  see,  on  the  contrary,  Hos.  ix.  1 
sq.  (3).  The  Day  of  Atonement  served  also  as  an  introduction  to  the  year  of 
jubilee  (§  152),  which,  according  to  the  agricultural  year,  began  at  harvest  (4), 
No  hint  is  given  in  the  law  as  to  the  reason  why  this  solemnity  was  to  take  place 
on  the  tenth  day  of  the  seventh  month  (5).  The  choice  of  the  day  has  undoubt- 
edly a  reflex  meaning, — the  first  decade  of  the  sabbath  month  was  thus  to  be 
made  a  season  of  repentance  and  self-examination  ;  and  modern  Judaism  has 
declared  the  days  from  the  first  to  the  tenth  Tisri,  days  of  penitence.  The  changes 
of  the  moon,  not  to  mention  the  new  moons,  determined  the  time  for  celebrating 
the  Passover  and  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  which  both  took  place  at  the  full 
moon  ;  the  after-Passover  was  also  celebrated  by  those  who  were  prevented  from 
celebrating  the  Passover  proper,  at  the  next  full  moou  (Num.  ix.  9-13,  comp, 
2  Chron.  xxx.  2)  ;  hence  otto  (Te?J/v?/g  G?/fieiov  eop-f/g,  Wisd.  xlii.  7.  It  must 
further  be  stated  that  the  Passover  took  place  at  about  the  vernal,  the  Feast 
of  Tabernacles  at  about  the  autumnal,  equinox  (6).  Notwithstanding  all  this, 
however,  it  is  quite  erroneous  to  deduce  the  significance  of  the  sacred  seasons  of 
Mosaism  from  cosmical  relations.  For  heathenism,  indeed,  which  identifies  the 
life  and  government  of  Deity  with  the  life  of  the  world,  the  seasons  of  the 
year,  as  such,  are  at  the  same  time  God's  seasons,  and  hence  the  conspicuous  ele- 
ments of  the  sun's  or  the  moon's  course  have  been  chiefly  used  as  festal  seasons 
(comp.  Bahr,  Symholil.,  ii.  p.  54G).  According  to  the  Old  Testament  view,  on 
the  contrary,  the  laws  of  the  heavenly  bodies  were  to  serve  as  a  chronometer 
for  the  theocratic  ordinances  (Gen.  i.  14  ;  Ps.  civ.  19),  that  the  harmony  of 
the  laws  of  nature  with  the  laws  of  the  covenant  might  be  manifested  in  this 
manner  also.  The  new  moons  at  most  could  be  regarded  as  the  chronological 
feasts  which  George,  e.g.  (Die  alteren  jildischen  Feste,  1835,  p.  193  sq.),  has  called 
a  certain  class  of  Jewish  festivals  ;  these  hold,  however,  a  very  subordinate  position 
in  the  Pentateuch  (see  §  150).  It  may  certainly  be  conjectured,  as  by  Ewald  (7), 
that  the  Israelites  (though  we  have  no  sufficient  data  for  the  assertion)  had  a  so- 
lemnity at  the  appearance  of  the  full  moon,  and  also  solemnities  at  the  seasons  of 
spring  and  harvest,  in  pre-Mosaic  times ;  we  may  also,  with  Philo  (8)  and  the 
moderns,  see  in  the  splendor  of  the  full  moon  a  special  glorification  of  the  Pass- 
over and  Feast   of  Tabernacles.     But  what  made  these  feasts,  feasts,  and  the 


320   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  140. 

Sabbaths  lioly  days,  was  not  human  clioice,  guided  by  the  order  of  nature,  but 
the  enactments  of  the  covenant  God,  who  on  the  one  hand  preserved  by  these 
festivals  a  lively  remembrance  of  the  great  facts  of  His  deliverance  and  guidance 
of  Kis  people  (comp.  Ex.  xiii.  9,  Lev.  xxiii.  42  sq.,  etc.),  and  on  the  other  admon- 
islied  the  people  to  follow  their  earthly  vocation  to  an  agricultural  life,  in  con- 
stant dependence  on  the  Giver  of  all  the  blessings  of  nature,  and  to  regard  these 
blessings  as  inalienably  connected  with  the  ordinances  of  the  covenant. 

(1)  On  the  sacred  numbecs,  see  Kliefoth,  "  die  Zahlensymbolik  der  hi.  Schrift," 
Theol.  Zeitschrift  von,  DiecMoff  unci  Kliefoth,  1862,  pp.  1-89,  241^53,  509-623  ; 
and  also  Leyrer's  article,  "  Zahlen  bei  den  Hebriiern,"  in  Herzog's  Real-EncyldoiJ. 
xviii.  p.  360  sq. 

(2)  Which  may  explain  why  it  seems  to  occupy  a  lower  position  than  the  other 
two,  and  is  entirely  omitted  in  the  prophecy  of  Ezekiel,  xlv.  21  sq. 

(3)  Comp.  Hupfeld,  de  lyrimitmi  et  vera  festorum  ap.  Hebrceos  ratione,  ii.  p. 
12  :  "  QucB  eiiim  esset  terne  et  proventuuin  consecratio  a  papula  frof ana  per  acta,  h.  e. 
communis  vitm  lahe  j^olluto,  nisi  antea  lustratus  ctexpiatus  seclenuo  saeraverit  .^"  Hos. 
ix.  1  sqq.,  a  prophetic  saying,  referring  most  probably  to  the  Feast  of  Taber- 
nacles, rings  out  the  threatening,  "Rejoice  not,  O  Israel,"  etc.,  in  the  midst  of 
the  harvest-rejoicings  of  the  apostate  peopk;. 

(4)  Even  the  relation  in  which  tlie  Day  of  Atonement  stands  to  the  year  of 
jubilee,  shows  that  its  significance  must  not  be  limited  to  that  of  an  introductory 
solemnity  to  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  Tlie  high  rank  accorded  to  it  among  the 
Mosaic  solemnities  entirely  forbids  our  placing  it  on  a  level  with  the  preparation 
for  the  Passover  on  the  10th  Nisan  (§  153),  which  had  no  festal  character  at  all. 

(5)  See  in  Carpzov's  Appar.  antiq.  s.  cod.  p.  433,  the  Rabbinical  fancies  on  this 
subject,  viz.  because  Adam  sinned  and  repented  on  the  10th  Tisri,  or  because 
Abraham  was  circumcised  on  this  day,  or  because  this  was  tlie  day  on  which 
Moses  came  down  from  the  mount  and  made  an  atonement  for  transgression  with 
the  golden  calf,  etc.  Philo  (de  sejiten.  ed.  M.  ii.  p.  297)  points  to  tlie  signifi- 
cance of  the  number  ten  as  the  number  of  perfection,  which  he  then,  in  his 
manner,  refers  to  the  ethical  value  of  the  fast  prescribed  on  this  day.  Accord- 
ing to  Biihr  (Si/mholik,  ii.  p.  673),  the  Day  of  Atonement  is  by  the  number  ten 
designated  as  tlie  most  comprehensive  and  perfect  of  days  ;  so  too  Kiirtz  {Sacri- 
ficial Worship,  p.  387). 

(6)  Philo,  de  septen.  ed.  M.  ii.  p.  297,  interprets  this  point  in  his  own  manner. 
Article,  Feste  der  alten  Hebr. 

(7)  Comp.  Ewald,  "De  feriarum  hebr.  origine  ac  ratione,"  Zeitschr.  fur  Kunde 
des  Morgenlandes,  ii.  p.  414  sqq. 

(8)  See  Philo,  idem,  p.  297  :  Iva  fifi  fied'  ^fiepav  povov  alia  Kal  vvKTup  Trlrjpr]^  6  k6(j- 
pog  7)  Tov  nayKalov  (purdg,  COmp.  p.  293. 

§146. 
The  Celebration  of  the  Holy  Days. 

On  the  celehration  of  the  holy  days,  the  following  general  remarks  may  be  made  : 

1.  Besides  the  sacrifices  prescribed  for  every  day,  certain  special  public  sacrifices, 
differing  in  character  according  to  the  several  festivals,  also  took  place.  The 
laws  respecting  these  are  found  in  Num.  xxviii.  and  xxix. 

2.  On  seven  annual  feast-days  (the  days  of  convocation  mentioned  §  145),  namely, 
the  first  and  seventh  days  of  unleavened  bread,  the  day  of  the  Feast  of  Weeks, 
the  new  moon  Sabbath,  the  Day  of  Atonement,  and  the  first  and  last  days  of  the 
Feast  of  Tabernacles,  rest  from  labor  was  commanded  as  well  as  on  the  iceeUy 


§    14fi.]  THE    CELEBRATION    OF   THE    HOLY    DATS.  327 

Sahhath.  There  was,  however,  this  difference,  that  wliilc  on  the  weekly  Sabbath 
and  the  Day  of  Atonement  all  labor  {T\2vh':^-l2)  was  forbidden  (Lev.  xxiii.  3, 
31,  comp.  with  Num.  xxix.  7),  on  the  other  above-named  six  days  of  rest  only 
nnb;;  npx'^p-S^  (Vulg.  sermleopus)  was  proscribed,  Lev.  xxiii.  7,  8,  21,  25,  35,  36, 
comp.  Num.  xxviii.  18,  etc.  The  latter  did  not  exclude,  as  is  evident  from  Ex. 
xii.  16,  the  preparation  of  food  (1).  Hence  in  the  Pentateuch  the  expression 
Jir(32/  r\3ti'  (high  day  of  rest),  denoting  the  stricter  abstinence  from  work,  is  used 
only  of  the  weekly  Sabbath  and  the  Day  of  Atonement,  Lev.  xvi.  31,  comp. 
xxiii.  28  ;  while  even  the  simpler  expression  riSC'  is  applied  only  to  the  rest-days 
of  the  feast  of  the  seventh  month  (2),  and,  according  to  the  common  explanation 
of  Lev.  xxiii.  11,  15  to  the  first  day  of  unleavened  bread  (3).  In  the  intervening 
days  of  the  two  festival  weeks,  work  was  permitted  (4). 

3.  The  2^ositlve  element  in  the  celebration  of  the  weeMy  SdUbatlis  and  the  sdb- 
l)atical  feast-days  is  contained  in  the  regularly  recurring  formula  I^^p  **"JPP  of  Lev. 
xxiii.  and  Num.  xxviii.  This  expression  does  not  mean,  as  the  LXX  and  Vul- 
gate understand  it,  k'aijt)/  dyia  kaTac  v/ilv,  vocaljitur  sancfMS,  or,  as  Cocceius  and 
Vitringa  (see  Synag.  vet.  p.  288  sq.),  and  among  moderns  Saalschiitz  (Mosaisches 
liecht,  p.  387),  by  comjiaring  Ex.  xxxii.  5,  Jer.  xxxvi.  9,  explain  it,  indictio 
sancti,  proclamatio  sanctitatis,  but  a  holy  calling  together,  and  is  intended  to  signify, 
as  Ezekiel,  xlvi.  3,  9,  expresses  it,  that  the  people  were  to  come  to  the  sanctuary 
to  worship.  A  universal  command,  however,  to  appear  in  the  sanctuary  (the  •^''*"1, 
according  to  later  designation)  only  took  place  with  regard  to  the  three  festal 
pilgrimages,  and  then  was  given  only  to  the  male  population,  Ex.  xxiii.  14,  17, 
Deut.  xvi.  16. 

4.  They  who  came  to  the  feasts  were  not  to  appear  before  the  Lord  emyty  (Ex. 
xxiii.  15,  comp.  xxxiv.  20,  Deut.  xvi.  16),  but  each,  as  ver.  17  says,  was  to  "  give 
according  to  the  blessing  of  the  Lord  thy  God  which  he  hath  given  thee."  This 
refers  to  the  free-will  offerings,  ver.  10,  the  Deuteronomian  tenths  (§  136.  3),  the 
first-born  of  cattle  (§  136.  1),  the  first-fruits  (§  136.  2),  etc.,  and  the  peace-offer- 
ings formed  of  them,  which  were  preceded  by  burnt-offerings.  Num.  x.  10,  festal 
repasts  following,  comp.  2  Chron.  xxx.  22  (5). 

(1)  See  the  thorough  discussion  of  this  matter  in  Gusset's  Lex.  hebr.  ed.  2,  pp. 
817  sq.  and  1582. 

(2)  Probably  (as  Gusset,  idem,  p.  1581,  perceives)  because  these  days  derived  a 
specially  sabbatical  character  from  the  sabbatic  month. 

(3)  According  to  another  interpretation.  Lev.  xxiii.  11,  15  refers  only  to  the 
weekly  Sabbath  (see  Hupfeld,  idem,  p.  4).  Biihr's  assertion,  idem,  p.  582,  that 
in  the  Old  Testament  the  word  Sabbath  sometimes  also  designates  the  whole  sys- 
tem of  feasts  and  festal  seasons,  is  quite  incorrect.  On  the  form  of  the  word 
\\T\T\D  =  aa[i,3aTiafi6c,  see  Ewald,  Auf.  Lehrl.  §  163  d. 

(4)  The  laws  by  which  this  liberty  was  subsequently  limited,  are  given  in  the 
Mishna  treatise  Moed  Katon,  ii.  11. 

(5)  Very  few  notices  of  the  sacred  seasons  are  found  in  the  canonical  books 
after  the  Pentateuch.  This  applies  especially  to  the  loolc  of  Joshua,  which 
mentions  (v.  10  sqq.)  onlv  the  first  Passover  celebrated  in  the  land  of  Canaan.  If 
this  book,  closely  connected  as  it  is  with  the  Pentateuch,  and  acknowledged  to 
presuppose  it,  makes  no  further  mention  of  festal  celebrations  and  such  matters, 
it  must  be  plain  to  every  unprejudiced  reader  how  little  the  non-existence  of  the 
feasts  can  be  inferred  from  the  silence  of  subsequent  books  concerning  them. 


328   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  147. 

II.    THE     SABBATICAL     SEASONS, 
(a)  THE   WEEKIiT   SABBATH  (1). 

§  147. 
'  1.  Antiquity  and  Origin  of  the  Sahlath. 

The  -word  TS'W^  which  is  mostly  a  feminine,  was  probably,  as  is  shown^  by  its 
form  with  suffixes  0^?^),  originally  an  abstract  contracted  from  r\r\^'^  (rest, 
ava^avaLQ,  Josephus,  Ant.  i.  1.)  (2).     The  full  expression  is,  however,  ^^m  DV. 

The  Sabbath,  which  many  regard  as  instituted  in  Paradise,  and  others  derive, 
as  the  day  of  Saturn,  from  the  oldest  heathenism,  viz.  the  Egyptian,  is,  according 
to  the  Pentateuch,  of  purely  Mosaic  origin  (3).  In  Gen.  ii.  1,  indeed,  the  hallow- 
ing of  the  seventh  day,  but  not  the  promulgation  among  men  of  a  command  to 
observe  it,  is  connected  with  creation  (4).  In  patriarchal  times,  too,  we  meet 
with  no  trace  of  the  Sabbath.  Accordingly  [some  of]  the  Fathers,-  when  opposing 
Judaism,  emphatically  insisted  that  the  righteous  before  the  time  of  Moses 
obtained  God's  approbation,  although  they  observed  no  Sabbath  (5).  The  first 
injunction  concerning  the  Sabbath  appears,  Ex.  xvi.  5,  22-30,  on  the  occasion  of 
the  gathering  of  the  manna,  and  in  a  form  which  seems  to  indicate  that  the 
Sabbath  was  not  then  known  to  the  people.  It  was  not  till  they  had  been  thus 
initiated  in  the  celebration  of  the  Sabbath,  by  experiencing  the  blessing  resting 
upon  it,  that  the  special  promulgation  of  the  Sabbath  command  followed  at  Sinai. 
The  expression -used  of  the  Sabbath,  Ex.  xx.  8,  "■Remember'"  pi^l),  is  not  in- 
tended to  recall  the  Sabbath  to  mind  as  an  ancient  institution,  but  requires  the 
people  to  be  from  that  time  onward  mindful  of  the  Sabbath-day,  and  thus  entirely 
corresponds  with  the  "  observe"  0''^^)  of  the  parallel  passage,  Deut.  v.  12  (6). 
Neh.  ix.  14  also  testifies  to  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  Sabbath.  To  derive  the  Sab- 
bath from  heathenism  is  decidedly  opposed  to  the  Old  Testament,  which  declares 
the  Sabbath  to  be  a  sign  between  Jehovah  and  His  people,  whose  part  it  is  to 
acknowledge  that  the  Lord  has  consecrated  Israel  to  be  His  people  (Ex.  xxxi.  13  ; 
Ezek.  XX.  12)  (7).  Neither  can  this  derivation  be  supported  by  the  history  of 
religion  (8).  It  is  true  that  the  notion  of  sacredness  of  the  numher  seven  was  very 
widely  diffused  in  antiquity  ;  but  this  may  be  sufficiently  explained  by  its  fre- 
quent and  significant  occurrence  in  natural  events,  especially  in  the  planetary 
system  of  the  ancients  and  the  course  of  the  moon  (9).  The  cycle  of  the  week,,  too, 
which  was  perhaps  originally  formed  as  the  quarter  of  the  synodic  lunar  month 
(so  Ilengstenberg),  though  not  jierfectly  corresponding  thereto,  reaches  back  to 
pre-Mosaic  times  (see  Gen.  xxix.  27  sq.,  and  perhaps  even  vii.  4,  10,  viii.  10,  12, 
xvii.  12,  xxi.  4)  (10).  Still  the  week  of  seven  days  was  by  no  means  universally 
diffused  in  antiquity  :  the  ancient  Egyptians  especially,  to  whom  Dio  Cassius, 
xxxvii.  18  sq.  (11),  refers  the  seven-days  week,  previously  used,  according  to 
recent  investigations  (12),  a  ten-days  division  of  time.  [Until  recently  no  trace 
of  a  religious  observance  of  the  seventh  day,  or  any  other  week-day,  could  be 
shown  (13),  but  George  Smith  [The  Assyrian  Eponym  Canon,  London,  1875)  has 
now  discovered  that  the  Assyrians  divided  the  first  eight-and-twenty  days  of 
every  month  into  four  weeks  of  seven  days  each,  and  observed  every  last  week- 


§   147.  J  ANTIQUITY   AND   ORIGIN   OF  THE   SABBATH.  829 

day  as  a  day  of  rest ;  and  Fr.  Delitzsch  thinks  he  has  found  the  word  Sabbath  in 
a  list  of  synonyms  (German  transhition  of  G.  Smith's  Chaldee  Genesis,  p.  300  sq.). 
But  aside  from  tlie  fact  that  these  discoveries  need  confirmation,  that  the  age  of 
the  witnesses  in  the  case  remains  to  be  determined,  and  that  it  is  still  a  question 
whether  the  Assyrians  did  not  observe  the  seventh  day  because  it  was  regarded 
as  an  unlucky  day,  the  Mosaic  Sabbath  is,  in  any  case,  peculiar  in  its  independence 
of  the  changes  of  the  moon,  and  in  its  significance,  as  an  institution  consecrated 
to  Jehovah,  and  resting  upon  the  covenant  relation  of  Israel  to  Jehovah.  J  (13). 
The  customary  combination  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath  with  the  dai/  of  Saturn  in 
Greek  and  Roman  authors  (14),  rests  upon  the  reference  of  the  seven  days  of  the 
week,  to  tJie  planets.  Of  this  the  Old  Testament  knows  nothing ;  and  even  in 
heathenism  the  notion  does  not  seem  of  very  great  antiquity  (15).  Its  general 
diffusion,  says  Dio  Cassius,  idem,  is  not  yet  old  (16), — the  passage  in  Herodotus, 
ii.  82,  which  informs  us  that  among  the  Egyptians  every  month  and  day  was 
sacred  to  some  god,  having  reference  to  the  days  not  (as  is  now  proved)  of  the 
week,  but  of  the  month,  each  of  the  thirty  days  of  the  month  having  its  special 
tutelar  divinity.  The  oldest  testimony  for  the  practice  in  question  is  the  oracular 
saying  in  Eusebius,  Pra;p.  ev.  5.  14,  where  the  invocation  of  the  seven  planets  on 
their  seven  days  is  referred  to  the  magician.  Ostanes,  who  was,  according  to 
Pliny,  Ilist.  nat.  30.  2,  a  contemporary  of  Xerxes.  That  succession  of  the  planets, 
on  which  the  naming  of  the  days  of  the  week  is  founded,  rests,  moreover,  ac- 
cording to  the  above-cited  passage  of  Dio  Cassius  (see  on  this  matter  Lobeck, 
Aglaophamus,  p.  941  sqq.),  upon  artificial  theories,  one  of  which  assumes  a  divi- 
sion of  the  day  into  24  hours.  On  this  account  it  is  a  doubtful  proceeding  to 
attribute  (as  Baur  does)  to  the  identification  of  the  Sabbath  with  Saturn's  day 
the  weight  of  a  very  ancient  tradition.  The  association  of  ideas,  however,  which 
led  to  this  combination  may  easily  be  perceived  (17).  The  idea  of  an  easy  and 
happy  life  was  so  closely  connected  with  the  idea  of  Saturn  (Hesiod,  Op.  et  d. 
170  ;  Pindar,  01.  2.  70  sq.),  that  6  knl  Kpdvov  jSlog  (Lucian.  Fugit.  17)  signified  a 
lazy  life  (18).  With  the  Romans,  too,  it  was  natural  to  compare  the  Jewish 
Sabbath  with  its  leisure,  and  as  being  the  day  on  which,  as  Tacitus  {Hist.  v.  4, 
comp.  Justin,  Hist.  36.  2)  states  the  matter,  their  labors  were  once  brought  to  an 
end  by  their  deliverance  from  Egypt,  with  their  own  Saturnalia.  No  Roman  or 
Grecian  author,  however,  knows  anything  of  any  heathen  celebration  of  the 
seventh  day  of  the  week.  Such  a  celebration  is,  on  the  contrary,  regarded  by 
Roman  authors  as  something  specifically  Jewish,  and  therefore  as  a  fit  subject  of 
scorn  for  the  satirists  (19)  ;  Seneca,  e.g.,  considering  that  to  keep  the  Sabbath 
was  '■'■  septimam  fere  partem  cetatis  j)erdere.''''  "When  Josephus  and  Pliilo  speak  of 
a  general  diffusion  of  the  rest  of  the  Sabbath,  this  must  be  referred  to  the  ever- 
increasing  imitatio7i  of  Jewish  customs  prevailing  in  those  centuries  (20)  ;  for  the 
leisure  of  the  seventh  day  was  not  only  grateful  to  proselytes  to  Judaism,  but  was 
also  adopted  by  the  heathen  (21),  especially  after  the  day  of  Saturn  (of  the  "  sidus 
triste,"  Juvenal,  Sat.  vi.  569)  was,  in  consequence  of  the  introduction  of  eastern 
astrology,  regarded  as  a  dies  ater,  and  consequently  as  unfavorable  to  any  under- 
taking, especially  to  a  journey  (Tibull.  i.  3.  18). 

(1)  Compare  my  article  "  Sabbath"  in  Herzog's  Real- Ency Hop.  xiii.  p.  103  sqq. 
[also  Hessey's  Bampton  Lectures  07i  Sunday,  1860  (3d  ed.  1806);  and  on  tlie  other 


330    THE  COVEN-ANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AKD  THE  THEOCKACY.    [§  147. 

side,  Gilfilhin  on  the  Salihatli,  1803  ;  and  a  series  of  articles  by  W.  D.  Love  in  the 
Bibliotheca  tiacra,  1880-81J. 

(2)  According  to  anotlier  view  (so  Evvald,  Aiisf.  Leiivl.  §  155  c),  the  word  is  said 
to  be  originally  a  masculine  after  the  form  ^£3p.,  and  to  designate  the  day  itself 
as  the  celebrator.  The  mode  of  expression,  however,  in  several  passages  {e.g. 
Ex.  xxxi.  15,  "  on  the  seventh  day  is  ri3iy")  does  not  agree  with  this  notion. 
(Compare  also  Btittcher,  Ausf.  Lchrh.  §  631.  4,  with  note  2.)  The  view  according 
to  which  T\TC}  is  said  to  to'  be  contracted  from  n;'^"^  (=  ej36oftac,  an  expression 
which  is  certainly  sometimes  placed  for  the  Sabbath,  2  Mace.  vi.  11,  xii.  38,  etc.), 
and  to  denote  the  seventh  day  (Lact.  inst.  7.  14  :  dies  scMatl,  qui  lijigua  Hebrmrum 
a  numero  nomen  accepit),  rests  on  no  lietter  foundation  than  does  the  combination 
of  the  root  n?"^  with  ^^^  by  Biihr,  Symbolik  des  mos.  Kultus,  ii.  p.  532  sq.  On  the 
contemptuous  explanation  of  this  word  in  Apion,  see  Josephus  in  his  work  against 
tlie  latter  (ii.  2).  The  LXX,  New  Testament,  Josephus,  and  others  render  the 
word  not  merely  by  to  adlSjSaTov,  but  also  by  ra  cdl3f3aTa  ;  the  latter  plural  form 
with  a  singular  meaning  might  have  been  an  imitation  of  the  Aramean  form  of 
the  stat.  e.nph.,  but  is  probably  to  be  explained  by  ihe  analogy  of  the  names  of 
other  sacred  seasons,  as  eyKalvia,  aCv/na.  Comp.  Buttmann,  Gramm.  des  neutest. 
Sprachidioms,  p.  21  ;  the  same,  on  the  metaplasm  in  the  declension  of  this  plural. 

(3)  [Wellhausen,  i.  llij,  observes  that  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  as  a  day 
of  rest,  necessarily  presupposes  fixed  settlement  and  agriculture,  which  also  clearly 
appears  in  the  ground  for  its  observance  in  the  Jehovistic  Deuteronomy,  and  that, 
since  the  cattle  must  be  fed  on  the  Sabbath,  there  is  no  Sunday  in  the  life  of  shep- 
herds, and  none  is  necessary.  But  this  is  certainly  no  argument  against  the  Mosaic 
origin  of  the  Sabbatli,  because  the  Mosaic  legislation  was  given  to  a  people  about  to 
settle  in  the  land  of  Canaan.  But  aside  from  this,  the  remark  of  Wellhausen  is 
not  important,  since  the  feeding  of  cattle  is  not  forbidden  on  the  Sabbath,  and 
even  during  the  wandering  in  the  desert  the  Israelites  had  other  occupations  be- 
sides the  pasturage  of  cattle.     Comp.  e.g.  Ex.  xvi.  22  sqq.,  Num.  xv.  32.] 

(4)  So  also  the  prevailing  Jewish  interpretation  understands  the  words  as  3in3 
Tn;^n~7;,'  (Rashi  in  loco).  An  allusion  to  the  Sabbath  can  only  be  discovered  in 
Gen.  iv.  3  by  an  incorrect  explanation  of  CP'  ]*pp. 

(5)  Justinus  Martyr,  Dial.  c.  Tryph.  cap.  19.  27  ;  Irenseus,  Adv.  haer.  iv.  16.  2  ; 
Eusebius,  Hist.  eccl.  i.  4. 

(G)  Gerhard,  Loc.  th.  ed.  Cott.  v.  p.  311,  rightly  says,  admonemur  hac  voce,  quod 
ad  prcBceptorum  divinorum  oiservantiam  requiratur  aniinus  memor  et  vigilans. 

(7)  So  even  the  Jews  themselves  regard  the  Sabbath  as  an  ordinance  specifically 
their  own.  See  Selden,  idem,  iii.  10  ;  hence  in  the  synagogue  worship  the  Sabbath 
is  greeted  as  a  bride  (comp.  Buxtorf,  Synag.  jud.  p.  299). 

(8)  See  Baur,  Der  hehrdische  Sahhath  und  die  Nationalfeste  des  mosaischen  Kultus, 
Tilbinger  Zeitschr.  1832,  No.  3,  p.  125  sq.  In  modern  works,  and  especially  in 
Oschwald's  ChristUche  Sonntagsfeier,  1850,  p.  13  sq.,  a  great  abuse  has  been  com- 
mitted in  maintaining  traditionary  positions  which  cannot  be  proved.  The  aim 
of  this  work  is  to  obtain  an  historical  foundation  for  the  opinion  that  the  Sab- 
batli was  not  abrogated  with  the  ceremonial  law,  by  asserting  its  pre-Mosaic  and 
extra-Mosaic  existence.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  how  a  one-sided  Nomism  here 
allies  itself  with_  certain  liypotheses  of  the  history  of  religion  which  subserve  a 
totally  different  interest.  Far  more  judiciously  has  the  matter  in  question  been 
treated  by  Liebetrut  in  his  work  Die  '/Sonntagsfeier  das  Wochenfest  des  Volkes  Gottes, 
1851. 

(9)  Comp.  Philo,  de  mundi  opif.  ed.  Mang.  i.  p.  24  ;  Plutarch,  de  Ei  ap.  Delpli. 
cap.  17. 

(10)  [That  the  week  of  seven  days,  and  along  witli  it  the  ]n-esumption  of  the 
Sabbath  observance,  is  very  ancient,  and  came"  from  the  Babvloniiuis  to  other 
nations,  appears  to  be  established  by  Schrader  (Studicn  und  Kritiken,  1874,  pp. 
343-35:5),  and  is  accepted  by  llichm  anrl  Dilhnann  as  ])roved.] 

(11)  Dio  Cassius,  xxxvii.  18  sq.  :    "  The  division  of  days,  according  to  the  seven 


t 
§    147. j  ANTIQUITY    AND    ORIGIN    OF   THE    SABBATH.  331 

so-called  planets,  began  with  the  Egyptians,  and  has  been,  but  not,  I  believe,  very 
long,  adopted  by  all  nations.  The  ancient  Greeks,  so  far  as  I  knovA%  were  unac- 
quainted with  it.  It  is  now,  however,  customary  among  all  people,  and  even 
among  the  Romans,  and  has  become  to  a  certain  extent  indigenous,"  etc. 

(12)  See  Lepsius,  Chronol.  der  Aegyptei\  i.  p.  22.  Brugsch  in  the  Zeitschr.  der 
dentschcn  morgenland.  Oesellsch.  iii.  p.  271. 

(13)  Especially  not  among  the  Egyptians,  not  even,  indeed,  according  to  the 
passage  of  Dio  Cassius  cited  above,  the  subject  of  which  is  the  merely  astrologi- 
cal im2)ort  of  the  seven  days  of  the  week,  and  by  no  means  the  special  sacredness 
of  one  of  them.  Nor  among  the  Arabs  ;  for  though,  clothed  in  black,  they  sacri- 
ficed an  ox  to  Saturn  on  his  day  in  a  hexagonal  black  temple,  the  reason  was  not 
that  the  seventh  day  was  hallowed  by  tJiem,  but  that  Saturn  was  feared  as  the  evil 
power,  the  planet  Jupiter  being  also  worshipped  by  them  on  his  day  by  the  sacri- 
fice of  a  hog  (see  Stiihr,  Religlonssyst.  des  Orients,  p.  407).  Nor  even  among  the 
Greeks  ;  for  though  Oschwald,  id.  (comp.  v.  Bohlen,  Altes  Indien,  ii.  p.  245  ;  Baur, 
id.  p.  135  sq.),  asserts  that  in  Grecian  literature,  and  even  so  early  as  Homer  and 
Hesiod,  we  meet  with  decided  testimony  to  the  sacredness  of  the  seventh  day,  this 
can  only  refer,  so  far  as  a  proof  of  an  analogy  with  the  Sabbath  is  concerned,  to 
those  verses  quoted  by  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  v.  14  ;  Eusebius,  Proej}.  ev.  xiii.  12, 
which  are  confessedly  of  Grteco-Jewish  fabrication.  Hesiod  himself  speaks.  Op.  et 
d.  ver.  770  sq.,  of  the  seventh  day  of  the  month  as  sacred  to  Apollo,  and  of  other 
days  of  the  month  as  appropriated  to  other  deities.  (See  Hermann,  Oottesdienstl. 
Alterth.  der  Qriechen,  §  44,  note  5  ;  Lobeck,  Aglaophamus,  p.  430  sqq.)  Finally, 
the  Roman  calendar  had,  as  is  known,  absolutely  nothing  to  do  with  the  weekly 
cycle  and  the  consecration  of  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  ;  its  feast  of  Saturn 
took  place  but  once  a  year,  in  December  (generally  on  the  19th),  and  lasted,  aft?r 
the  era  of  Augustus  for  three,  after  that  of  Caligula  for  five  days.  (When  seven 
days  were  reckoned,  as  Martial.  14.  72,  Lucian.  epist.  Saturn.  25,  other  festivals 
were  included.) 

(14)  A  combination  subsequently  adopted  by  the  Rabbins,  inasmuch  as  they 
call  the  planet  Saturn  "'HSK'. 

(15)  Comp.  Ewald,  Zeitschr.  filr  die  Kunde  des  Morgenl.  iii.  p.  417. 

(16)  For  a  summary  of  the  evidence  that  the  several  week-days  were  called  after 
the  planets,  see  Selden,  idem,  iii.  19. 

(17)  Dio  Cassius  alludes  to  this  when  he  mentions,  as  a  peculiarity  of  the 
Jewish  Sabbath,  the  ovSev  to  Tzapdirav  Spav  (cap.  16),  epyov  ovSevbg  c~ovi5aiov  irpocaTv- 
TEodai  (cap.  17). 

(18)  On  the  torpor  Satumi,  comp.  Servius  on  Virgil,  ^n.  vi.  714). 

(19)  Comp.  Ovid,  De  art.  amat.  i.  415  sq.  ;  Juvenal,  Sat.  xiv.  96-106  ;  Persius, 
V.  179-184  ;  Martialis,  iv.  4,  7.  The  saying  of  Tacitus,  '■^  Moses,  quo  sHi  in  poste- 
rum  gentem  firmaret,  novos  ritus  contrarios^we  ceteris  mortalibus  indidit,^^  refers,  as 
ajipears  from  the  context,  among  other  things  to  the  celebration  of  the  Sabbath. 

(20)  Josephus,  in  the  frequently  misunderstood  passage,  c.  Ap.  ii.  39,  says  : 
"There  is  no  city,  whether  Greek  or  barbarian,  and  no  single  nation,  to  which 
the  custom  of  the  seventh  day,  which  we  celebrate  by  intermission  of  labor,  has 
not  penetrated."  As  appears  from  the  connection  of  the  whole  passage,  this  rhe- 
torical exaggeration  by  no  means  speaks  of  an  institution  akin  to  the  Sabbath  as 
having  existed  from  of  old  among  the  heathen.  The  passage  in  Philo  (Vil  Mos. 
ii.  p.  137),  when  his  hyperboles  are  reduced  to  their  due  proportion,  testifies  to 
nothing  more  than  Seneca  complains  of,  when,  in  the  well-known  words  in 
Augustine,  Civ.  dei,  vi.  11  (Seneca,  Op]),  ed.  Hnse,  iii.  p.  427),  he  laments  the 
mimicry  of  Jewisli  customs:  ^'- usque  eo  sceleratissimm  gentis  consuetudo  convahiit, 
ut per  omnes  jam  terras  recepta  sit ;  victi  victoribus  leges  dederunt.'''' 

(21)  Comp.  how  Tertullian,  Apol.  cap.  16,  speaks  of  heathen  qui  diem  Satumi 
otio  et  victui  decernunt,  exoriitantes  et  ipsi  a  Judaico  more,  quern  ignorant,  i.e.  be- 
cause they  are  unacquainted  with  the  religious  meaning  of  the  Sabbath. 


333    THE  COVEifANT  OE  GOD  AVITH  ISKAEL  AND  THE  THEOCKACY.    [§  148. 


§148. 
2.    The  Idea  of  the  Sabbath. 

In  conformity  with  what  has  already  been  advanced,  the  meaning  of  the  Sab- 
bath is  to  be  known  from  the  Old  Testament  alone.  The  chief  passages  relating 
to  it  are  Gen.  ii.  3,  Ex.  xx.  11,  xxxi.  13-17,  the  essential  matter  of  which  is  as 
follows  : — God  created  the  world  in  six  days,  and  rested  on  the  seventh,  and 
therefore  blessed  and  hallowed  this  day,  on  which  His  work  was  complete. 
Hence  the  people  whom  He  has  consecrated  to  Himself,  and  who  acknowledge 
the  Creator  and  Lord  of  the  world  as  their  God,  are  also  to  hallow  the  seventh 
day  as  a  day  of  rest  after  every  six  days'  labor  in  the  works  of  their  calling,  and 
this  is  to  be  a  sign  of  the  covenant  between  God  and  His  people.  These  propo- 
sitions contain  the  following  thoughts  :  1.  Man,  like  God,  is  to  work  and  to  rest ; 
thus  human  life  is  to  be  a  copy  of  Divine  life.  But  especially  must  the  people 
who  are  called  to  be  the  instrument  of  restoring  the  Divine  order  in  earthly  life 
be  seen  to  be  the  jieculiar  possession  of  the  living  God,  by  an  alternation  of  work 
and  rest  corresjionding  with  the  rhythm  of  the  Divine  life.  2.  Divine  labor  ter- 
minates in  happy  rest ;  not  till  the  Creator  rests  satisfied  in  the  contemplation  of 
His  works  is  His  creation  itself  complete.  So,  too,  human  labor  is  not  to  run  on 
in  resultless  circles,  but  to  terminate  in  a  happy  harmony  of  existence.  This 
thought,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter  (§  152),  is  impressed  with  especial  clearness  on 
the  institution  of  the  year  of  jubilee  with  which  the  sabbatic  seasons  close.  The 
idea  of  the  Sabbath,  however,  extends  further.  That  the  whole  course  of  human 
history  is  not  to  run  on  in  dreary  endlessness  ;  that  its  events  are  to  have  a  posi- 
tive termination  ;  are  to  find  a  completion  in  an  harmonious  and  God-given  order, 
— is  already  guaranteed  by  the  Sabbath  of  creation,  and  prefigured  by  the  sab- 
batical seasons.  The  Divine  rest  of  the  seventh  day  of  creation,  which  has  no 
evening,  hovers  over  the  world's  progress,  that  it  may  at  last  absorb  it  into  itself. 
It  is  upon  the  very  fact  that  the  rest  of  God,  the  KardTzavaLQ  Qeov,  is  also  to  be  a 
rest /or  man,  and  that  God  has  declared  tliis  by  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath, 
that  Heb.  iv.  founds  a  proof  for  the  proposition  :  apa  anoleiTreTaL  aappaTcaiihg  r« 
laC)  rov  Beov  (ver.  9)  (1).  This  idea  of  the  Sabbath  finds  its  formal  expression  in 
the  number  seven,  this  number  frequently  appearing  in  natural  occurrences  as 
aptd/ibc  TeA(C!(h6()nQ  and  aTvoKaTacrraTiKoc,  as  Philo  calls  it  (2).  It  thus  became  the 
sign-manual  of  the  perfection  in  which  the  progress  of  the  world  was,  according 
to  Divine  charter,  to  result,  and  a  special  pledge  of  the  perfection  of  the  king- 
dom of  God  (3). 

The  full  purport,  however,  of  the  idea  of  the  Sabbath  is  not  attained  until  that 
dominion  of  sm  and  death,  which  have  entered  into  the  development  of  mankind, 
is  taken  into  account.  It  was  after  the  curse  of  God  was  imposed  upon  the  earth, 
and  man  condemned  to  labor  in  the  sweat  of  his  brow  in  the  service  of  his  perish- 
able existence,  that  the  desire  for  the  rest  of  God  took  the  form  of  a  longing  for 
redem}ytio7i  (Gen.  v.  29).  Israel,  too,  learned,  by  sufl!ering  under  Egyptian  op- 
pression without  any  refreshing  intermission,  to  sigh  for  rest.  When  their  God 
bestowed  upon  them  their  regularly  recurring  period  of  rest,  by  leading  them  out 
of  bondage,  this  ordinance  became  at  the  same  time  a  tlianhfvl  solemnity  in  re- 


§    148.]  THE    IDEA    OF   TUE    SABBATH.  333 

memhrance  of  the  deliverance  they  had  ex2)erienced.  Hence  it  is  said,  in  the  second 
version  of  the  Deciiloglie  (Deut.  v.  15)  :  "Remember  that  thou  wast  a  bondman 
in  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  the  Lord  thy  God  brought  thee  out  thence,  with  a 
mighty  hand  and  a  stretched-out  arm  ;  therefore  tlie  Lord  thy  God  commanded 
thee  to  keep  the  Sabbath-day."  This  passage  does  not,  as  it  has  often  been  un- 
derstood, merely  urge  a  motive  for  the  special  duty  of  not  hindering  servants 
from  resting  on  the  seventh  day  ;  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  does  it  contain,  as  has 
also  been  asserted,  the  proper  objective  reason  for  the  sanctification  of  the  Sab- 
bath, which  is,  on  tlie  contrary,  expressed,  as  already  said,  in  the  first  version  of 
the  Decalogue,  Ex.  xx.  11  ;  but  it  applies  to  the  keeping  of  the  Sabbath,  in  par- 
ticular, that  consideration  which  is  the  deepest  subjective  incitement  to  the  ful- 
filling of  the  whole  law  (4).  How  closely  the  remembrance  of  the  deliverance 
from  Egyptian  bondage  was  bound  up  with  this  very  institution  of  the  Sabbath, 
is  evident  from  wdiat,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Roman  authors  given  above 
(Tacitus,  Hist.  v.  4  ;  Justin,  Hist.  36.  3),  was  known  to  the  heathen  concerning 
the  reason  for  the  celebration  of  the  Sabbath. 

We  have  thus  explained  how  the  Sabbath  teaches  to  look  upward,  onward, 
and  tackward ;  but  one  point,  important  in  an  ethical  aspect,  remains  to  be  no- 
ticed. The  Sabbath  has  its  significance  only  as  the  seventh  day,  preceded  by  six 
days  of  labor.  The  first  j^art  of  the  command,  Ex.  xx.  9,  to  hallow  the  Sabbath, 
is  itself  equally  a  command  :  "Six  days  shalt  thou  labor  and  do  all  that  thou 
hast  to  do,  but  the  seventh  is  tlie  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  thy  God  "  (5).  Thus  it 
is  only  upon  the  foundation  of  preceding  labor  in  our  vocation  that  the  rest  of  the 
Sabbath  is  to  be  reared.  The  saying,  Gen.  iii.  19,  "In  the  sweat  of  thy  face  thou 
shalt  eat  bread,"  remains  in  force.  The  Sabbath  is  only  intended  to  prevent 
self-exhaustion  in  earthly  labor  (6),  and  to  sanctify  the  works  of  our  calling  by 
the  end  tow^ard  which  they  tend.  The  humane  character  of  the  Mosaic  law  which 
is  stamped  upon  the  ordinance  of  the  Sabbath,  especially  in  the  benefits  it  con- 
fers upon  menials,  the  strangers  dwelling  in  the  midst  of  Israel,  and  the  beasts 
of  draught  and  burden  (Ex.  xx.  10,  xxiii.  12),  and  the  civil  and  social  advan- 
tages it  brings,  cannot  be  further  dwelt  on  here  (7). 

(1)  This,  as  is  well  known,  was  further  explained  by  the  ancient  Church  of  the 
seventh  of  the  seven  thousand  years  during  which  the  world  was  to  continue  its 
course,  and  which  was  to  be  its  sabbatical  consummation  (see  especially  Lactan- 
tius,  Inst.  vii.  14). 

(2)  Comp.  Baur,  id.,  and  Philo,  de  mundi  opif.  M.  i.  p.  24,  de  septenario,  M.  ii. 
p.  281.  Philo's  mysticism  of  numbers  is  founded  upon  the  circumstance  that  seven 
is  that  number  in  the  decade  which  is  not  produced,  and  which,  within  the  decade, 
does  not  produce.  Thus  seven  becomes  the  symbol  of  the  immutable,  the  com2)lete. 
However  little  weight  we  may  attribute  to  this,  it  is  at  all  events  remarkable  that 
a  certain  importance  of  the  number  seven  glimmers  through,  in  one  way  or  other, 
in  every  one  of  the  more  develojied  religions  of  antiquity. 

(3)  The  view  brouglit  forward,  chiefly  by  Bahr  {Symlolih  des  mos.  Krdtus,  i.  p. 
187),  that  three  is  the  signature  of  the  Godhead,  four  that  of  the  world,  seven  as  the 
number  in  which  three  and  four  meet  and  combine  in  one  number,  the  signature  of 
the  connection  of  God  and  the  icorld,  is  not  tenable.  Comp.  on  this  point,  besides 
what  is  quoted  §  145,  note  1,  Lammert,  Zur  Revision  der  biblischen  Zahlensymbolik, 
Jahr'b.fu.r  deutsche  Theol.  1864,  No.  1.  He  says,  p.  7  :  "As  often  as  seven  recurs 
in  the  enumeration  of  sections  of  time,  there  is  a  period  of  sacred  rest,  a  time  of 


334   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  149. 

the  Lord,  when  earthly  work  is  hiid  aside,— a  type  of  the  consummation  which 
will  take  place  in  that  sabbatic  rest  which  remaineth  to  the  people  of  God. 

(4)  Deut.  V.  15  bears  the  same  relation  to  Ex.  xx.  11  as  does  e.g.  Deut._  xxvi. 
8  sq.  to  previous  laws  concerning  the  offering  of  the  first-fruits.  [This  view  of 
the  passage  is  not  accepted  by  Riehm  (p.  1810)  and  Dillmann  (p.  216)  who  regard 
it  as  expressing  the  thought  that  Israel,  as  Jehovah's  property  by  deliverance 
from  Egypt,  is  bound  to  observe  the  Sabbath.] 

(5)  It  is  not  correct  to  say,  with  Hengstenberg,  that  the  chief  matter  with 
respect  to  the  Sabbath  is  not  that  it  is  exactly  the  seventh  day,  but  that  it  is  the 
weekly  recurring  rest  day  of  the  people.  The  sabbatical  seasons  are  closing 
periods.     The  idea  of  Sunday  is  quite  different. 

(6)  Keil,  Bill.  Archdol.  i.  p.  362  :  "  As  a  corrective  of  the  injury  arising  from 
that  severe  and  burdensome  labor,  the  result  of  the  curse,  which  tends  to  alienate 
man  from  God." 

(7)  It  was  remarked,  §  12,  what  good  service  has  been  done  in  these  respects, 
especially  by  J.  D.  Michaelis.  The  Old  Testament  sabbatic  ordinances  have  in 
this  respect  found  an  eloquent  eulogist  in  Proudhon,  the  communist  {Die  Sonn- 
tagsfeier,  letrachtet  in  Hinsicht  auf  offentliclie  Gesundheit,  Moral,  Familien-  und 
Bilrgerleben  •,  aus  dem  Franzosischen,  Ratibor,  1850).  The  bringing  forward  of 
such  utilitarian  considerations  is  not  on  the  whole  unjustifiable,  if  they  are  stated 
as  merely  secondary,  and  are  deduced  without  violence  from  the  principle  ;  but 
only  total  misconception  or  gross  perversion  of  the  ideal  import  of  the  Mosaic  law 
can  characterize  them  as  the  proper  explanation  of  the  Mosaic  ordinances. 

§149. 
3.  The  Celebration  of  the  Saibath. 

According  to  the  foregoing  remarks,  the  Sabbath  is  a  Divine  institution,  or,  to 
speak  more  correctly,  a  gift  of  Divine  grace  for  the  sanctification  of  the  people 
(Ezek.  XX.  12)  (1).  In  other  words,  the  Sabbath  is  first  of  all  of  a  sacramental 
nature.  To  the  Divine  gift  the  conduct  or  devotion  of  the  people  which  God 
requires  must  correspond,  and  thus  a  sacrificial  is  added  to  the  sacramental 
element.  If  the  sacrificial,  however,  is  placed  in  the  foreground,  as  by  Ewald 
{Antiquities,  p.  110  sqq.),  who  views  the  Sabbath  as  a  sacrifice  of  rest,  or  if  the 
sabbatical  abstinence  from  labor  is,  as  a  cessation  from  business  and  a  renuncia- 
tion of  gain,  even  placed  on  a  level  with  fasting,  as  by  Knobel  (on  Lev.  xxiii.), 
we  have  in  either  case  a  thorough  misconception  of  the  Old  Testament  vietv  (2). 
In  the  Old  Testament,  the  Sabbath,  so  far  from  presenting  any  painful  aspect  of 
renunciation,  is  regarded  as  a  delight  (Isa.  Iviii.  13),  a  day  of  joy  {comitare  the 
song  for  the  Sabbath,  Ps.  xcii.  and  Hos.  ii.  13)  (3). 

It  is  in  this  sense  that  we  must  regard  the  enactments  with  respect  to  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  Sabbath.  The  first  point  is  the  resting  from  labor,  to  which  belongs 
not  merely  the  intermission  of  servile  work  (field  work  even  in  the  seasons  of 
ploughing  and  harvest,  Ex.  xxxiv.  21  ;  gathering  wood.  Num.  xv.  32),  but  also, 
Ex.  xvi.  23,  omission  of  the  preparation  of  food, — the  prohibition  to  kindle  fire 
in  their  dwellings,  xxxv.  3,  referring  without  doubt  to  the  latter.  The  Israelites 
were  also  forbidden  to  go  out  of  tlie  camp,  xvi.  19,  on  the  Sabbath,  whence  the 
prohibition  of  travelling  on  that  day  subsequently  arose.  Capital  punishment, 
xxxi.  14,  xxxv.  2,  viz.  by  stoning.  Num.  xv.  35  sq.,,was  attached  to  the  trans- 
gression of  these  enactments,  as  it  was  to  that  of  all  the  fundamental  laws  of  the 
theocracy.     It  was  quite  in  harmony  with  these  appointments  of  the  law,  that  the 


§    149.]  THE    CELEBRATION    OF   THE    SABBATH.  335 

bearing  of  burdens,  Jer.  xvii.  21,  and  trading,  Amos  viii.  5  scj.,  were  declared  incom- 
patible with  the  Sabbath,  and  tliat  Nehemiah  ordered  a  barring  of  the  gates,  Neh. 
xiii.15,  19,to  prevent  tlie  trading  whoso  discontinuance  had,  according  to  x.  31, been 
promised.  The  positive  celebration  of  the  Sabbath  arose  from  its  appointment  for 
worship.  Besides  the  consecration  it  received  from  the  doubling  of  the  morning 
and  evening  sacrifices  (Num.  xxviii.  9),  and  the  renewal  of  the  shewbread  (Lev. 
xxiv.  8),  a  holy  convocation,  W'i^  ^lp?P,  also  took  place  on  this  day  (see  §  146. 
3).  As  it  was  possible  for  only  a  small  portion  of  the  people  to  visit  the  central 
sanctuary,  meetings  for  hearing  and  meditating  on  the  Divine  word  may  have 
taken  place  in  very  early  times,  but  the  first  trace  of  such  assemblies  is  found  in 
2  Kings  iv.  33.  Greater  prominence  is  unmistakably  given  in  the  law  to  the 
negative  than  to  the  positive  side  of  Sabbath  sanctification  ;  and  it  is  totally 
incorrect  to  assert  with  Hengstenberg  that  the  cessation  from  labor  enjoined  on 
the  Sabbath  was  merely  a  means,  the  end  being  public  worship.  It  is  worthy  of 
remark  that  the  later  prophetic  passages  which  insist  on  the  sanctification  of  the 
Sabbath,  such  as  Isa.  Ivi.  2,  Iviii.  13  sq.,  Jer.  xvii.  21  sqq.,  confine  themselves  to 
declaring  what  ought  not  to  be  done  on  the  Sabbath  ;  Isa.  Iviii.  13  even  forbids 
unprofitable  idleness  and  empty  talk.  Are  we  then  to  conclude  that  that  positive 
sanctification  of  the  Sabbath,  which  consists  in  public  worship,  was  less  intended 
by  the  law  ?  Such  a  notion  is  opposed  by  the  whole  development  of  the  Sabbath 
idea  just  described.  We  must  rather  recognize  here  that  wise  tuition  of  the  law, 
which  does  not  expressly  command  much,  because  it  leaves  much  to  be  the  spon- 
taneous result  of  the  given  facts,  types,  and  ordinances  (comp.  §  84).  Such  a 
process,  from  negative  to  positive,  from  the  external  to  the  internal,  was  latent  in 
the  legal  prescriptions  concerning  the  rest  of  the  Sabbath.  Besides  insuring 
that  recreation  which  is,  as  we  have  said,  their  projier  aim,  they  go  as  far  as  is 
needful  in  preparing  the  ground  for  a  positive  sanctification  of  the  day,  the 
motives  for  which  are  thus  implanted  in  the  nation's  heart  (4)  ;  while  the  enact- 
ments, on  the  contrary,  with  which  the  later  Judaism  encompassed  the  command 
concerning  the  Sabbath,  were  wholly  adapted  to  repress  a  cheerful  observance  of 
the  day  (5). 

(1)  Ezek.  XX.  12  :  "I  gave  them  my  Sabbaths,  to  be  a  sign  between  me  and 
them,  that  it  might  be  known  tliat  I,  .Jehovah,  sanctify  them." 

(2)  [Dillmann's  view  (p.  215  sq.)  is  similar  to  that  of  Ewald.  According  to 
Lemme  {Die  religioriageschiditiclie  Bedeutung  des  Dclcalogs,  p.  59  sqq.)  the  inac- 
tivity of  the  Sabbath  rest  is  the  expression  of  dependence  upon  God.  "  Since  a 
false  activity,  in  a  pretended  influence  upon  the  Deity,  is  excluded  (this  is  to  Him 
the  fundamental  thought  of  the  previous  commandments  of  the  decalogue),  inac- 
tivity becomes  parallel  to  the  thought  of  the  right  dependence  upon  God."] 

(3)  At  their  first  celebration  of  the  Sabbath,  the  people  received  a  substantial 
pledge  of  the  blessing  with  which  its  faithful  observance  would  be  rewarded,  and 
of  the  bountiful  compensation  contemplated  for  what  was  lost  by  cessation  from 
labor  (Ex.  xvi.  29). 

(4)  Comp.  Vitringa,  Be  Synag.  vet.,  p.  295  f. 

(5)  These  enactments  were  made  in  the  centuries  between  Ezra  and  Christ. 
On  the  importance  attached  during  the  captivity  to  the  ordinance  of  the  Sabbath 
as  one  of  those  portions  of  the  ceremonial  law  which  could  be  practised  by  the 
Jews  scattered  among  the  heathen,  comp.  Frophetism.  The  above-quoted  passages, 
however,  of  the  book  of  Nehemiah,  especially  x.  31.  according  to  which  the 
people  had  to  bind  themselves  by  oath  to  give  up  trading  on  the  Sabbath,  show 


33<3    THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  AVITII  ISKAEL  AND  THE  THEOCKACY.    [§  150. 

tliat  at  that  time  a  strict  observance  of  the  Sabbath  had  uot  yet  become  a  custom 
of  the  people.  There  is,  however,  in  the  measures  taken  by  Nehemiah  for  the 
preservation  of  the  sabbatic  rest,  nothing  of  the  microscopic  casuistry  of  after 
times.  On  the  scrupulousness  with  which  the  Sabbath  was  observed  in  tlie  times 
of  the  Maccabees,  see  the  above-cited  article,  p.  2t)0,  where  will  also  be  found, 
p.  201  sqq.,  a  collection  of  the  most  important  prescriptions  of  the  later  Judaism. 

(p)    THE   NEW  MOON   SABBATH. 

§  150. 

By  the  term  new  moon,  according  to  the  sense  in  which  the  law  uses  it,  we  must 
undoubtedly  understand,  not  the  astronomical  new  moon,  but  the  Jii'st  appearance 
of  the  moon's  sicMe,  which  was  thus  designated  by  other  ancient  nations  also,  and 
certainly  by  the  later  Jews  (1).  The  ordinary  new  moons  were  only  subordinate 
festivals,  on  which  (Num.  xxviii.  11-15)  an  increased  burnt-offering  was  offered, 
accompanied,  as  appears  from  x.  10,  by  a  blowing  of  trumpets.  They  were  chiefly 
used,  as  may  be  conjectured  from  1  Sam.  xx.  5  sq.,  for  family  sacrifices.  Labor 
was  not  forbidden  on  these  days  ;  but  in  later  times,  as  may  be  inferred  from  Amos 
viii.  5,  a  stricter  observance  seems  to  have  been  enacted,  at  least  in  the  kingdom  of 
the  ten  tribes. — The  seventh  neic  moon,  viz.  that  of  the  month  Tisri  in  the  autumn, 
on  the  contrary,  was  a  sabbatical  day.  Its  projier  name,  nj^'nJI  DV^  the  day  of 
trumpet-sounding,  seems  to  indicate  that  the  use  of  trumpets  in  public  worship 
took  place  with  special  solemnity  on  this  day.  The  meaning  of  the  Mowing  of 
trumjMs  is  evident  from  Num.  x.  9  sq.  :  "  If  ye  go  to  war,  ...  ye  shall  blow  an 
alarm  with  the  trumpets,  and  ye  shall  be  remembered  before  the  Lord.  .  .  .  Also 
in  the  days  of  your  gladness,  your  solemn  days  or  new  moons,  ye  shall  blow  with 
trumpets  at  your  burnt-offerings  and  at  your  peace-offerings,  for  a  memorial  before 
your  God"  (D:5'ribi<  'J37  jn^fb).  According  to  this,  the  sounding  of  trumpets  at 
worsliij)  took  the  place,  as  it  were,  of  an  invocation  :  it  was  to  bring  the  people 
to  God's  remembrance,  or  rather  to  bring  the  people  to  the  consciousness  that  God 
was  thinking  of  them.  Hence  we  subsequently  find  that,  when  after  the  time  of 
David  singing  was  introduced  into  public  worship,  Ihe  intervention  of  trumpet- 
sounding  by  the  jjriests  at  specially  marked  passages  helped,  so  to  speak,  to  bear 
the  supplications  of  the  people  upward  to  the  Lord  (comp.  2  Chron.  xiii.l4)  (2). 
Whether,  however,  the  sounding  of  trumpets  at  the  seventh  new  moon  was  meant 
to  indicate  in  a  general  mnnncr  that  this  was  an  intensified  Sabbath,  or  whether 
(as  Sommer  thinks)  this  act  liad  a  reference  to  the  Day  of  Atonement  which  clpsely 
followed,  and  was  intended,  as  it  were,  to  remind  God  of  the  apj^roaching  act  of 
grace,  of  the  renewed  forgiveness  of  the  sins  of  the  people,  cannot  be  determined. 
— Tha  feast  of  the  neto  year  (3)  was  not  yet  a  d;iy  celebrated  in  the  Mosaic  worship, 
though  the  precept,  Ex.  xii.  2,  that  the  month  in  which  Israel  departed  from 
Egypt  (that  of  Abib  or  Nisan  in  the  spring)  was  to  be  the  first  month  of  the  year, 
seems  to  indicate  that  the  year  had  previously  commenced  at  another  period  (4)  ; 
and  passages  such  as  Ex.  xxiii.  16  presuppose  an  agricultural  year  beginning  in 
the  autumn,  which  probably,  however,  had  no  appointed  boundaries  (5). 

(1)  On  the  approach  of  the  new  moon,  the  SanhL'drim  assembled  at  Jerusalem 


§   151.]  LEGAL  ENACTMENTS.  337 

to  receive  from  him  who  had  first  seen  tlio  sickle  of  the  moon,  the  information, 
which  was  thou  transmitted  by  signals  thronghont  the  country. 

(2)  To  this  I  refer,  with  Sommer  (cump.  his  BiU.  Abhandl.  i.  p.  37  sq.),  Keil, 
and  others,  the  dithcult  SehtJi. 

(3)  [Wellhaiisen  maintains  (i.  Ill  sq.)  that  the  day  was  the  ecclesiastical  new 
year  in  the  priests'  codex  ;  that  it  survived  from  an  earlier  period,  as  the  civil 
new  year  also  was  originally  in  the  autumn  ;  that  the  transfer  of  the  beginning  of 
the  year  to  the  spring  (Abib  or  Nisan)  was  subsequently  made  under  Baby- 
lonian inliaence  ;  and  that  this  later  change  of  t lie  calendar  is  evident  in  the 
priests'  codex  from  the  fact  that  it  designates  the  old  New  Year's  day  as  the 
first  day  of  the  seventh  month.  Now,  if  this  were  correct,  we  should  have  clear 
evidence  of  tlie  late  composition  of  the  priests'  codex.  But  from  the  fact  that, 
according  to  Lev.  xxv.  9  sq.,  the  trumpets  were  blown  at  the  beginning  of  the  year 
of  jubilee  on  the  10th  of  Tisri  (comp.  on  the  meaning  of  this  blowing  of  trumpets, 
§  152),  it  does  not  follow  that  the  new  moon  of  Tisri  was  thereby  characterized 
as  the  ecclesiastical  New  Year's  day,  nor  even  as  a  New  Year's  day  at  all.  On  the 
other  hand,  that  the  reckoning  according  to  the  spring  season  rested  upon  late 
Babylonian  influence,  comp.  Dillmann,  p.  102  sq.] 

(4)  Comp.  also  what  is  said  on  the  narrative  of  the  deluge  in  the  commentaries 
on  Genesis  of  Knobei,  p.  74,  and  Delitzsch,  ed.  2,  p.  250  sq.,  ed.  4,  p.  213  sq. 

(5)  See  also  Ex.  xxxiv.  22,  and  finally  the  appointment  concerning  the  com- 
mencement of  the  year  of  jubilee,  Lev.  xxv.  9,'  together  with  the  fact  that  the 
sabbatical  year  must  also  naturally  have  begun  at  seed-time,  i.e.  in  harvest  (comp. 
xxv.  4).  According  to  Josephus,  A77t.  i.  3.  3,  the  beginning  of  the  year  with  Tisri 
was  of  pre-Mosaic  institution  ;  and  this  date  was  preserved  by  Moses  for  the  trans- 
action of  civil  business.  But  whatever  might  have  been  the  case  with  regard  to 
the  pre-Mosaic  year,  the  above-quoted  passages  from  the  middle  books  of  the 
Pentateuch  do  not  point  to  the  1st  Tisri  as  the  beginning  of  the  civil  year.  For  it 
is  unnatural  to  suppose  that,  on  the  assumption  of  such  a  date  of  commencement, 
it  could  be  said  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  which  was  celebrated  from  the  15th 
to  the  21st  Tisri,  that  it  fell  in  the  end  of  the  year  ;  nor  are  the  remarks  of  Hupfeld 
(De  primitiva  et  vera  temjj.fest.  ap.  Hehr.  ratione.^  ii.  p.  14),  in  favor  of  such  a  view, 
of  much  avail.  Far  preferable  is  the  view  of  Hitzig  {Komm.  zu  Jesaja,  p.  335), 
that  if  the  beginning  of  the  agricultural  year  (for  the  so-called  civil  year  is 
more  correctly  designated  thus)  was  bound  to  an  appointed  day,  still  for  ordinary 
affairs  the  commencement  of  the  year  dated  from  the  close  of  the  Feast  of  Taber- 
nacles. On  the  question  how  the  new  moon  Sabbath  became  the  civil  new  year's 
festival,  as  it  still  is  among  the  Jews,  see  the  history  of  the  post-Babylonian 
period. 

(c)  THE  SABBATICAL  YEAR  AND  THE  YEAR  OF  JUBILEE  (1). 
§  151. 

Legal  Enactments. 

The  institutions  of  the  sabbatical  year  and  the  year  of  jubilee,  with  which  the 
cycle  of  sabbatic  seasons  closed,  are  so  closely  connected,  that  it  will  be  con- 
venient to  consider  them  together.  The  laws  relating  to  the  sabbatical  year  are 
as  follow  : — First,  the  general  command,  Ex.  xxiii.  10  sq.,  that  after  the  land 
had  been  sown  and  its  harvests  gathered  during  six  successive  years,  it  should 
rest  and  lie  still  (HJ^ipC'ri)  (2),  that  the  i^oor  might  eat  of  it,  and  that  what  they 
left  the  beasts  of  the  field  might  eat.  In  like  manner,  too,  were  the  vineyards  and 
olive-yards  to  be  dealt  with.  Care  for  the  poor  is,  as  the  connection  with  what 
precedes  shows  (8),  the  point  of  view  under  which  the  sabbatical  year  is  here 
chiefly  regarded.     The  second  and  more  detailed  law.  Lev.  xxv.  1-7,  more  pre- 


338   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISKAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  151. 

cisely  designates  this  ordinance  as  a  rest  of  the  land  (vers.  2,  4)  unto  Jehovah, 
calls  the  year  a  sabbath  year  (|ii"'|'-^  jir^),  and  further  directs  that  what  the 
fields  and  vineyards  produce  in  this  year  without  cultivation  shall  not  be 
stored  up,  but  consumed  by  the  owner,  his  family,  his  day  laborers,  and  the 
strangers  sojourning  with  him  ;  his  cattle,  and  the  wild  animals  of  the  land  (4). 
The  point  of  view  here  taken  is  that  the  produce  of  the  sabbatic  year  is  to  be 
commo7i  property  for  man  and  beast  (comp.  Josephus,  Ant.  iii.  12.  3), — a  point  of 
view  which  does  not  exclude, but  includes,that  brought  forward  in  the  first  law. 
With  the  great  fertility  of  the  soil  of  Palestine,  which  is  still  apparent  (5)  in  its  self- 
sown,  wild-growing  wheat,  the  growth  (O'SD)  from  the  fallen  seeds  of  the  pre- 
ceding year  might  yield  a  not  inconsiderable  crop  (6).  An  essentially  new  en- 
actment is  contained  in  the  third  law,  Deut.  xv.  1-11.  The  connection  of  1-6  with 
xiv.  29,  and  with  what  follows  in  xv.  7-10,  recalls  the  connection  of  the  first  law 
in  the  book  of  the  covenant,  the  question  being  here,  as  there,  the  special  import 
of  the  sabbatical  year  to  the  poor.  For  in  the  seventh  year  every  creditor  was  to 
release  {p^'4)  the  loan  he  had  lent  to  his  neighbor  (7).  Of  his  neighbor  or  of  his 
brother,  in  contradistinction  to  a  foreigner,  ver.  5,  he  was  not  to  exact,  because 
a  release  (111302/)  had  been  proclaimed,  to  the  honor  of  the  Lord  ;  whence  the 
sabbath  year  is  also  called,  ver.  9  (comp.  xxxi.  10),  nppi^n  njli',  the  year  of 
release.  The  question  whether  by  release  we  are  to  understand  a  final  remission 
or  a  temporary  suspension,  has  been  variously  answered.  The  former  is  the  or- 
dinary Jewish  view  (8),  though  expedients  were  subsequently  found  for  evading 
the  command  (9).  Many  Christian  theologians  have  also  shared  in  the  Rabbinic 
view,  especially  Luther.  The  expressions,  however,  in  vers.  2  and  3  go  no  fur- 
ther than  to  say  that  debts  are  not  to  be  exacted,  and  therefore  point  merely  to 
their  suspension  (10).  The  fourth  law  respecting  the  sabbath  year,  Deut.  xxxi. 
10-13,  enjoins  that  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  in  the  year  of  release,  the  law 
shall  be  read  in  the  public  assembly  of  the  people  in  the  sanctuary.  The  sab- 
bath year  being  regulated  by  agriculture,  and  beginning  with  the  omission  of  sow- 
ing in  autumn,  or  being  more  definitely  connected  with  a  certain  day,  as  the 
year  of  jubilee  was  with  the  10th  Tisri  (11),  this  Feast  of  Tabernacles  would 
occur  at  its  commencement  (12).  Hence  a  significant  hint  is  given  by  this  pre- 
cept as  to  how  the  seventh  year  just  entered  upon  ouglit  to  be  hallowed. 

Seven  such  sabbatic  years  terminated  with  the  year  ofjuiilee  ('^^i'n  flJty).  With 
respect  to  this  it  is  said.  Lev.  xxv.  8,  10  :  "Seven  sabbaths  of  years  shalt  thou 
number,  seven  years  seven  times,  that  the  days  of  the  seven  sabbaths  of  years 
may  be 'forty-nine  years.  .  .  .  And  ye  shall  hallow  the  fiftieth  year."  This 
very  variously-explained  passage  is  most  naturally  understood  as  declaring  that 
the  year  of  jubilee  is  to  follow  the  seventh  sabbatical  year, — not,  indeed  (as  some 
have  considered),  as  the  first  year  of  a  new  period  of  sabbatical  years,  but  so  that 
the  new  period  should  not  commence  till  the  fifty-first  year.  This  view  of  the 
matter  appears  to  be  assumed  by  both  Philo  and  Josephus  (13).  And  thus  also 
does  the  controverted  passage  xxv.  20-22,  which  then  refers  to  the  year  of  jubilee 
spoken  of  immediately  before,  and  assumes  two  consecutive  fallow  years,  find  its 
most  natural  explanation.  According  to  another  view,  the  year  of  jubilee  was, 
on  the  contrary,  the  forty-ninth,  and,  as  the  sabbath  of  sabbath  years,  coincided 


§   151.]  LEGAL  ENACTMENTS.  339 

with  every  seventh  of  the  latter  (14).  It  is  thus  generally  assumed  that  the  sab- 
batical year  began  in  the  spring  ;  and  the  designation  of  the  year  of  jubilee  as  the 
fiftieth  is  explained  by  saying  that  the  latter,  not  commencing  till  harvest,  v^'as 
composed  of  the  second  half  of  the  seventh  year  and  the  first  half  of  the  first  year 
of  a  new  sabbatical  period.  This  latter  theory  cannot  appeal  with  certainty  to 
Jewish  tradition.  For  the  view  of  R.  Jehuda  (Erachin,  fol.  13  I),  that  the  year 
of  jubilee  as  a  whole  was  never  reckoned  as  a  separate  year,  is  an  isolated  one, — 
the  tradition  of  the  Geonim  (in  Maimonides,  de  juribus  anni  septimi  et  jubilm,  x. 
4)  only  asserting  that  the  year  of  jubilee  fell  into  desuetude  after  the  destruction 
of  the  first  temple. 

According  to  Lev.  xxv.  9,  the  year  of  jubilee  was  to  be  proclaimed  by  the 
sound  of  a  trumpet  (njT^iri  "laiC*)  throughout  the  whole  land  (by  means  of  mes- 
sengers), on  the  tenth  day  of  the  seventh  month,  that  is,  on  the  Day  of  Atone- 
ment, after  all  the  transgressions  resting  upon  the  peoj)le  had  been  expiated. 
It  was  from  the  sound  of  this  trumpet  (Raschi,  "l£)1ty  n;^"'pn  Dty  i]^)  that  the  year, 
according  to  the  most  widely-accepted  view,  took  its  name.  In  this  case  73V 
must  probably  be  explained  as  derived  from  73'  to  flow  abundantly,  and  used  to 
designate  the  sound  flowing  or  bursting  forth  from  the  trumpet, — a  sense  which 
well  agrees  with  the  expression  75"n  '^i|^9)  ^^-  ^^^-  ^^;  ^^^  73Vn  pj^3  ^K'p, 
Josh.  vi.  5.  Others  regard  it  as  an  onomatopoetic  word,  in  the  sense  of  jubilamt 
(comp.  Gesenius,  TTies.  ii.  p.  561)  ;  thus  the  Vulgate  renders  :  Annus  jubilei  or 
juMleus.  On  the  other  hand,  a  Rabbinic  tradition  (see  Aben  Ezra  on  Lev.  xxv. 
10)  makes  73V  =  ni7K^,  emissus,  and  designate  a  ram,  and  then  a  ram's  horn.  This 
explanation  is  in  any  case  incorrect,  while  the  grammatical  notion  on  which  it  is 
founded  is,  on  the  contrary,  admissible.  73V  would  then,  with  "'ll'^,  free  course, 
denote  first  him  who  is  free  to  go  where  he  will,  and  then  attain  the  abstract 
meaning  of  "T'"1"1  itself  (see  Hitzig  on  Jer.  xxxiv.  8),  which  agrees  well  with  Lev. 
xxv.  10  (15). 

With  regard  to  the  celebration  of  the  year  of  jubilee,  we  notice  first  the  feature 
which  it  had  in  common  with  the  sabbatical  year,  as  a  cessation  from  agricultural 
labor ^  Lev.  xxv.  11  sq.  The  produce  of  what  grew  of  itself  was  not  to  be  stored 
up,  but  brought  in  from  the  field  as  required  for  use  (16).  The  feature  peculiar 
to  the  year  of  jubilee  is  contained,  ver.  10,  in  the  words,  "  Ye  shall  hallow  the 
fiftieth  year,  and  proclaim  liberty  O^"^"^)  throughout  the  land  unto  all  the  in- 
habitants thereof  :  it  shall  be  a  jubilee  unto  you,  that  ye  may  return  every  man  to 
Ids  possession,  and  every  man  to  Jus  family.''^  In  this  year,  called  hence,  Ez.  xlvi. 
17,  "m"7  ^y^  (which  may  be  briefly  translated,  as  by  Luther,  the  free  year  [A.V. 
the  year  of  liberty'^),  there  took  place,  as  it  were,  a  new  birth  of  the  state,  at 
which  all  such  civil  impediments  as  were  opposed  to  theocratic  principles  were 
abolished.  One  of  these  was  the  bondage  of  Israelitish  citizens  (17).  Hence 
according  to  ver.  39  of  the  law  in  Lev.  xxv.,  every  Israelite  who  had  sold  himself 
on  account  of  his  poverty  was  to  be  freed  (comp.  §  110).  Another  consisted  in 
the  alienation  of  hereditary  estates,  which  might  not  therefore  extend  beyond  the 
year  of  jubilee,  in  which  all  property  was  to  return  without  compensation  to  the 
family  to  whom  it  originally  belonged  {i.e.  to  the  original  possessors,  if  still  alive, 
or  to  their  heirs),  Lev.  xxv.  33  sq.     Houses  in  unwalled  villages  were  (ver.  31) 


340   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  151. 

treated  in  the  same  manner  as  landed  property,  while  houses  in  walled  towns,  on 
the  contrary,  if  unredeemed  during  the  year  of  respite  after  their  sale,  remained 
the  property  of  their  purchasers,  the  year  of  jubilee  making  no  alteration  in  this 
respect,  ver.  39  sq.  The  reason  for  this  distinction  is  easily  perceived.  Houses 
of  the  former  kind  were  closely  connected  with  landed  property  (ver.  13,  they 
shall  be  counted  to  the  field  of  the  country),  while  houses  in  towns,  on  the  other 
hand,  stood  in  no  relation  to  the  land,  and  hence,  as  mere  human  works  and 
property,  were  not  equally  under  the  sovereignty  of  Jehovah  as  Lord  of  the  land. 
[Yet  the  houses  of  the  Levites  in  the  cities  assigned  to  them  formed  an  exception. 
As  a  possession  belonging  to  them  in  virtue  of  a  divine  ordinance,  they  were 
to  be  dealt  with  exactly  as  the  inheritances  of  the  other  tribes.] 

(1)  Comp.  Hupfeld,  De  primitiva  et  vera  tern}},  fest.  ap.  Hebr.  ratione,  iii.  Hal. 
1858,  and  my  article  on  the  sabbatical  and  jubilee  years  in  Herzog's  Real-Encylclop. 
xiii.  p.  204  sq.  [also  Riehm's  art  "Jobeljahr"  and  "  Sabbath jahr"'  in  his 
IIandwdrterl)ucli\.  A  list  of  the  numerous  monographs  on  this  subject  is  given  by 
Winer  in  the  Bibl.  Realworterhuch  under  the  articles  Sabiath  Year  and  Tear  of 
Jiibilee.  The  chief  works  of  later  date  are  Hug's  essay,  "  Ueber  das  mosaische 
Gesetz  vom  Jubeljahr"  in  the  Zeitschr.  fur  das  Erzbisthtcm  Freiiurg,  i.  1,  and  the 
prize  essays  at  the  Jubilee  of  the  Gottingen  University,  1837,  de  anno  Hebrmorum 
juMloio,  by  Kranald  and  Wolde  ;  comp.  Ewald's  notice  of  the  latter  in  the  Zeitschr. 
fur  die  Kunde  des  Morgenl.  i.  p.  410  sq. 

(3)  In  opposition  to  the  usual  explanation,  Hupfeld  (id.  p.  10)  thinks  that  the 
suffix  in  T\r\WQ)\  nipoLVO  refers  not  to  ^^'^^  l^ut  to  nnND;i,  and  understands  ver. 
11  as  inculcating  not  an  omission  of  cultivation,  but  only  a  setting  free  of  the 
produce.  But  even  granting  this  cei'tainly  admissible  construction,  it  is  by  no 
means  justifiable  to  understand  ver.  11  as  though  it  said  :  In  the  seventh  year 
thou  shalt  indeed  also  sow  thy  land,  but  leave  its  produce  free.  "Krowov  yap  f/v, 
hepovg  fiev  tvoveiv,  erepovg  6e  KapKovjOcu,  as  Philo  (de  carit.  ii.  p.  391)  rightly  remarks. 
On  the  contrary,  ver.  11,  according  to  its  evident  meaning,  forms  a  contrast  to 
the  whole  preceding  verse.  [Wellhausen  and  Riehm  understand  the  law  as  not 
here  prescribing  for  the  whole  nation  a  common  sabbath  year  in  which  the  entire 
harvest  was  to  be  relinquished,  but  rather  that  every  individual  proprietor  was  to 
use  his  right  of  cultivating  any  piece  of  ground  only  six  years,  and  in  the  seventh 
year  should  give  up  the  harvest  of  the  cultivated  piece,  or,  according  to  Riehm, 
should  leave  the  ground  fallow.  Dillmann  decides,  referring  to  the  analogy  of 
V.  12,  in  favor  of  the  ordinary  view,  viz.  that  a  common  sabbatical  year  was  jore- 
scribed.] 

(3)  Compare  Ranke,  Untersuchungen  i/her  den  Pentateuch,  ii.  p.  53. 

(4)  The  meaning  of  this  appointment  is  not  at  all,  as  Hupfeld,  id.  p.  13, 
understands  it,  that  the  produce  of  the  sabbath  year  is  to  serve  for  the  nourish- 
ment of  the  family  to  the  exclusion  of  the  poor  ;  for  hired  servants  and  strangers 
didnot  (as  is  evident  from  Ex.  xii.  45)  belong  to  the  family,  and  both  classes, 
having  no  possessions  of  land  in  the  country,  are  just  those  who  must,  on  the 
contrary,  be  reckoned  among  the  poor  of  the  land  (comp.  Deut.  xxiv.  14). 

(5)  See  the  information  given  on  this  point  in  Ritter's  Erdhunde,  xvi.  pp.  283, 
483,  693. 

(G)  Still  the  meaning  of  the  law  is  not  that  this  wild  growth  would  suffice  for 
the  nourishment  of  the  year  ;  Lev.  xxv.  30-33,  on  the  contrary,  assumes  that 
the  stores  of  former  years  were  available. 

(7)  Or,  if  with  Hupfeld,  id.  p.  21,  we  read  H^D  in  ver.  2,  and  make  n;  de- 
pendent on  DiOK/,  every  creditor  shall  let  his  hand  rest  with  respect  to  that  which 
he  hath  lent  to  his  neighbor. 

(8)  A  view  which  is  probably  to  be  regarded  as  that  of  the  LXX,  who  translate 
cKpijaEiq  nav  xP^°i  •    •    •   ««'  Tof  a6e?.ip6v  cov  ovk  anaiTl/ai'tr,  which  is  then   found   in 


§    151.]  LEGAL   ENACTMENTS.  341 

Philo,  who,  de  septen.  ed.  M.  ii.  p.  277,  designates  the  matter  by  ra  (5di'£/a 
XapiCecrda/,  and,  p.  284,  by  xp^^k-o^'"i  'ind  is  finally  expressed  in  Mishria  Shebiith, 
X.  1. 

(9)  According  to  the  Mishna,  id.  §  8,  the  law  was  complied  with  if  the  creditor 
merely  promised  to  remit  the  debt,  and  then,  if  the  debtor  insisted  on  making 
payment,  received  it  as  a  gift,  — a  gift,  that  is,  which  the  Gemara  defines  as  one 
to  which  the  debtor  was  previously  pledged.  For  other  exjiedien^.s  provided  in 
the  Mishna  for  lightening  the  burden  entailed  by  this  command,  especially  the 
so-called  Proshul,  see  the  article  quoted,  p.  206.  See  also  on  this  subject  Geiger's 
Lesestiicke  aus  der  Mischna,  pp.  4,  77  sq.,  and  Saalschiltz's  Mos.  Becht,  p.  164, 
note  208. 

(10)  We  cannot  see  that  this  is  opposed,  as  has  been  asserted,  to  ver.  9,  for  the 
consideration  that  money  lent  could  not  be  called  in  during  the  sabbath  year 
might  well  give  rise  to  the  refusal  of  loans  during  the  period  immediately  pre- 
ceding it.  The  command  in  respect  to  debts  has  been  frequently  so  combined  with 
the  law  for  letting  the  land  lie  fallow,  as  to  represent  the  former  ..-  aiising  from 
a  regard  to  the  incapacity  incurred  by  the  debtor  through  his  loss  of  the  regular 
harvest.  This  combination  cannot  be  entirely  rejected,  though  the  special  motive 
for  the  law  is  a  deeper  one,  as  will  be  further  shown  in  the  subsequent  discussion 
of  the  idea  of  the  sabbatic  year.  It  is  generally  acknowledged  that  the  law  for 
the  emancipation  of  Hebrew  bondmen  and  bondmaidens  in  the  seventh  year  of 
their  bondage,  which  immediately  follows  the  law  in  reppect  to  debts,  Deut.  xv. 
12-18,  has  no  reference  to  the  sabbatical  year.  This  is  evident  even  from  ver.  14, 
which  enjoins  that  the  freed  bondman  shall  be  furnished  out  of  the  floor  and  out 
of  the  wine-press, — an  injunction  presupposing  a  regular  harvest. 

(11)  According  to  the  view  of  most  Rabbins,  even  of  IMaimonides  [de  juribus 
anni  septimi  et  juiilrei,  vi.  6),  both  the  sabbatical  year  and  the  year  of  jubilee 
began  on  the  first  of  Tisri.  The  time,  however,  at  which  the  Jewish  year  subse- 
sequentlj  commenced,  certainly  gave  rise  to  this  view.  There  is  no  reason  what- 
ever for  altering,  with  Hupfeld,  "nti';'3  of  Lev.  xxv.  9  into  "'^^f'.  Gusset,  Com- 
ment, ling.  heh'.  s.v.  ^'Q'^,  defends  the  view  which  makes  the  sabbath  year  begin 
with  the  1st  Nisan.  A  comparison  of  the  different  views  on  this  jjoint  is  given 
by  Majus,  Dissert,  dejure  anni  septimi,  p.  19. 

(12)  D'Ji^  r??y  1*1^0,  in  Deut.  xxxi.  10,  does  not  mean  "  at  the  end  of  the 
seventh  year,"  or  even  "  after  its  expiration,"  i.e.,  at  the  beginning  of  the  eighth, 
as  31.  Beta,  vii.  8,  understands  the  passage,  but,  like  xv.  1,  "at  the  end  of  a 
seven-years  period,"  i.e.  in  the  seventh  year,  generally  speaking  ;  comp.  xxv.  18 
with  xxvi.  12. 

(13)  Philo,  who  frequently  mentions  the  year  of  jubilee,  always  calls  it  the 
fiftieth  ;  and  Josephus  expressly  says.  Ant.  iii.  12.  3,  that  the  lawgiver  com- 
manded to  do  the  same  as  is  done  in  the  sabbath  year,  fied'  e[366/irjv  eruv  i[36o/Lid6a. 
Taiira  irevTTjKovra  fiev  tarcv  etj]  to,  T^avra,  Kalelrai  de  vno  'E/ipa/wv  6  nevTriKoarbq  kviavTog 
'lu[3ri?Mg. 

(14)  So  Gatterer,  Frank,  and  other  older  chronologists  (comp.  Ideler,  Ilandluch 
der  CJironohgie,  i.  p.  504  ;  also  Gusset,  id.)  ;  and  among  moderns,  especially 
Ewald,  Antiquities  of  the  Pwple  of  Israel,  p.  375. 

(15)  So  the  LXX  :  hiavrbg  cKptoeug  :  Josephus,  Ant.  iii.  12.  3:  klevOepiav 
arifiaivEi  to  ovo/na.  On  other  explanations  of  the  expression,  see  Majus  on 
Maimonides,  de  juribus,  etc.,  p.  120  sq.  ;  Carpzov,  Ajyp.  ant.  p.  447  sq. 

(16)  Lev.  xxv.  11  :  "  Ye  shall  not  sow,  neither  reap  its  (the  land's)  self-growth, 
nor  gather  its  unpruned  vine  :  for  it  is  the  jubilee  ;  it  shall  be  holy  unto  you  :  ye 
shall  eat  its  increase  out  of  the  field."  Even  Isa.  xxxvii.  30,  in  which  a  prospect 
of  nourishment  from  what  grew  of  itself,  even  in  the  second  year,  is  held  out  to 
the  people,  because  agriculture  could  not  be  pursued,  is  sufficient  to  remove  any 
doubt  as  to  whether  the  soil  would  yield  crops  worth  speaking  of  in  a  second 
fallow  year.  The  fertility  of  Palestine  was  certainly  not  less  than  that  of 
Albania,  where,  according  'to  Strabo,  xi.  4.  3,  one  sowing  yielded  from  two  to 
three  crops. 


342   THE  COVENAISTT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  152. 

(17)  This  was  opposed  to  the  Lord's  exclusive  proprietorship  of  His  redeemed 
people.  Lev.  xxv.  42  :  "  For  they  are  my  servants,  whom  I  brought  forth  out  of 
the  land  of  Egypt ;  they  shall  not  be  sold  us  bondmen. 

§  153. 

Import  and  Practicability/  of  the  Iiistitutmis  of  the  Sabbatical  Year  aiid  the  Tear  of 

Jubilee. 

The  meaning  of  these  two  institutions  has  been  chiefly  deduced  from  their  value 
in  a  merely  political  and  agricultural  point  of  view  (1).  Thus  J.  D.  Michaelis 
{Laws  of  Moses,  i.  art.  74)  seeks,  in  his  usual  manner,  to  show  that  the  sabbatical 
year  was  intended  to  oblige  the  people  to  lay  by  during  productive  years,  as  the 
best  means  of  preventing  dearth.  Others  have  regarded  the  manuring  of  the 
fields  by  the  cattle,  who  were  allowed  to  be  turned  loose  in  them,  and  others  still, 
who  are  the  majority,  the  enhancement  of  the  fertility  of  the  soil  by  leaving  it 
fallow,  with  the  consequent  promotion  of  the  chase,  as  its  main  design, — others 
again  regard  it  as  unreasonable  to  allow  the  land  to  lie  fallow  two  successive 
years.  But  of  all  this  the  law  says  not  a  word  :  it  simply  refers  (Lev.  xxv.  21 
sq.)  to  the  Divine  blessing  with  which  obedience  was  to  be  rewarded  (2).  With 
far  greater  discrimination  than  is  manifested  in  the  suggestion  of  such  utilitarian 
considerations,  Ewald  recurs  to  that  feeling  for  nature  prevailing  among  the 
ancients,  which  assigned  to  the  soil  a  Divine  right  to  rest  and  forbearance  (8). 
But  this,  too,  fails  to  reach  the  true  point  of  view  clearly  expressed,  Lev.  xxv.  2, 
in  the  words,  "  The  land  shall  keep  a  sabbath  unto  the  Lord.''^  It  is  upon  the 
thought  that  man,  acknowledging  in  act  God's  higher  right  of  property  ("the 
land  is  mine,"  ver.  23),  should  withhold  his  hand  from  cultivating  the  land,  and 
place  it  wholly  at  the  Lord's  disposal  for  His  blessing,  that  the  whole  ordinance 
is  founded  (4).  It  is  at  the  same  time  the  payment  of  a  debt  on  the  part  of  the 
land  to  Jehovah  (comp.  Lev.  xxvi.  34  ;  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  21).  Israel  was  thus 
taught,  as  Keil  (Archdologie,  i.  p.  373)  aptly  remarks,  that  "  the  earth,  though  made 
for  man,  was  yet  not  made  merely  that  he  might  possess  himself  of  its  increase, 
but  that  it  might  be  holy  to  the  Lord,  and  also  partake  of  His  blessed  rest." 
Thus  the  sabbath  year  is  in  a  certain  sense  a  return  to  the  condition  existing  before 
the  words  (Gen.  iii.  17),  "Cursed  is  the  ground  for  thy  sake  ;  in  sorrow  shalt 
thou  eat  of  it  all  the  days  of  thy  life,"  were  uttered  (5).  Equally,  too,  does  the 
sabbath  year  typically  point  to  the  time  when  creation  shall  be  delivered  from 
the  bondage  of  corruption  (Rom.  viii.  21).  Besides,  the  increase  wherewith  God 
blessed  the  earth  in  the  sabbath  year  being  common  to  all,  whether  man  or  beast, 
and  especially  designed  for  the  benefit  of  the  poor,  a  check  was  thus  put  upon 
a  selfish  estimation  of  the  rights  of  property,  and  the  remembrance  fostered  that 
the  Lord,  upon  whom  the  eyes  of  all  wait  that  He  may  give  them  their  meat 
in  due  season  (Ps.  civ.  27),  would  have  every  living  thing  satisfied  with  His 
gifts  (Ps.  cxlv.  16)  (6).  Finally,  that  the  poor  might  really  enjoy  life,  they  were 
to  be  released  from  pressure  on  the  part  of  their  creditors  (7). 

The  year  of  jubilee,  by  which  the  sabbatic  cycle  was  completed,  while  involving 
the  idea  of  the  sabbath  year,  has,  moreover,  its  own  specific  import  in  the  idea  of 
release,  and  of  the  reinstatement  of  the  theocracy  in  its  original  and  divinely  a|> 


§  152.]         THE   SABBATIC    YEAR   AND   THE    YEAR   OF   JUBILEE,  343 

pointed  order,  in  which  all  were,  as  the  servants  of  God,  to  be  free,  and  each  whs 
to  be  assured  of  his  earthly  maintenance,  by  being  restored  to  the  enjoyment  of  tiie 
inheritance  allotted  to  his  family  for  this  purjjose.  The  God  who  once  redeemed 
His  people  from  Egypt,  and  acquired  them  as  His  possession,  liere  ajopears  again 
as  a  redeemer  (J^^),  to  restore  to  the  bondman  his  personal  freedom,  and  to  re- 
endow  the  poor  with  the  share  allotted  him  in  the  inheritance  of  his  people.  For 
among  the  covenant  peojile  no  poor  should  properly  have  been  found  (Deut.  xv. 
4)  ;  and  the  fruit  of  a  consistent  carrying  out  of  the  law  of  the  year  of  jubilee 
would  at  least  have  been  that  a  proletariat  could  not  have  been  found  in  Israel. 
Before  such  a  year  of  grace,  however,  could  appear,  transgressions  must  have  been 
pardoned  ;  hence  the  year  of  jubilee  was  to  be  proclaimed  on  the  Dai/  of  Atone- 
ment (see  Keil,  id.  p.  379).  The  sound  of  the  trumpet,  as  it  once  proclaimed  on 
Sinai  the  descent  of  the  Lord  for  the  promulgation  of  the  law,  was  now  to 
announce  His  gracious  presence,  and  at  the  same  time  to  serve  as  a  summons  to 
the  congregation. — In  the  prophecy,  Isa.  Ixi.  1-3,  the  year  of  jubilee  is  as  the  year 
of  anoKaTaaTaaiQ  regarded  as  typical  of  the  times  of  the  Messiah,  in  which  the 
discords  of  the  world's  history  are  to  be  resolved  into  the  harmony  of  the  Divine 
life.  And  hence  Christ  designates  Himself  as  the  fulfiller  of  this  prophecy  (Luke 
iv.  21)  ;  while  Heb.  iv.  9,  by  calling  the  perfected  kingdom  of  God  the  aa/3(iaTta/x6c 
of  the  people  of  God,  also  refers  to  the  type  of  the  year  of  jubilee. 

We  proceed  to  inquire  into  the  practicability  of  the  institutions  of  the  jiibilee  and 
the  sabbatical  year.  The  difficulties  [of  observing  them]  are  so  evident,  that  for  this 
very  reason  it  is  impossible  to  explain  the  whole  system  as  an  outgrowth  from 
subsequent  relations,  rather  than  as  purely  a  result  of  the  theocratic  principle  (8). 
Still  the  system  was  by  no  means  absolutely  impracticable,  if  the  people  were  will- 
ing to  sacrifice  all  selfish  considerations  to  the  Divine  will.  The  omission  of 
these  ordinances  was,  however,  already  contemplated  in  Lev.  xxvi.  35,  while  how 
far  they  were  really  carried  into  practice  in  post-Mosaic  times  does  not  appear. 
It  is  evident  from  2  Chrou.  xxxvi.  21,  where  it  is  said  that  the  land  lay  desolate 
during  the  captivity  seventy  years  to  make  up  for  its  sabbath  years,  that  the 
celebration  of  the  sabbatical  year  had  been  omitted  during  the  last  centuries  be- 
fore the  captivity.  If  the  number  is  taken  exactly,  the  passage  points  to  an 
omission  of  the  sabbath  year  reaching  back  about  500  years,  i.e.  to  the  days  of 
Solomon  (9).  Scarcely  any  traces  of  the  year  of  jubilee,  during  the  time  pre- 
ceding the  ca2:)tivity,  are  found  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  these  in  passages  of 
doubtful  interpretation  ;  the  most  probable  is  in  Isa.  xxxvii.  30.  Whether  the 
chronological  statement  in  Ezek.  i.  1  ("  in  the  thirtieth  year")  means  the  thirtieth 
year  of  a  jubilee  period  (see  Hitzig  in  he.  and  on  xl,  1)  is  very  uncertain  ;  while 
in  Ezek,  vii,  12,  on  the  contrary,  we  at  all  events  meet  with  a  reference  to  the  or- 
dinance of  the  jubilee,  and  in  the  prophetic  legislation  in  Ezekiel  the  institution 
is  certainly  presupposed.  The  year  of  liberty  mentioned  Jcr.  xxxiv.  8-10,  is  not 
a  year  of  jubilee.  The  release  of  the  servants  was  appointed  merely  with  refer- 
ence to  Ex.  xxi.  2,  Deut.  xv.  12  sqq.,  the  occasion  perhaps  being  (see  Hitzig  in 
he.)  the  occurrence  of  a  sabbath  year.  The  legal  principle,  on  the  contrary,  for 
the  preservation  of  which  the  year  of  jubilee  was  appointed,  viz.  that  every 
family  should  retain  its  inheritance,  had  struck  deep  root  in  the  nation.  Comp. 
the  narrative  (1  Kings  xxi.  3  sq.)  of  Naboth,     Prophetic  rebukes,  too,  like  Jer. 


344   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  152. 

V.  8  sq.  and  Mic.  ii.  2,  etc.,  can  only  be  fully  understood  from  this  point  of  view  ; 
■while  these  very  passages  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  a  carrying  out  of  the  law  of 
the  jubilee  was  out  of  the  question.  After  the  captivity,  the  people,  under  the  in- 
fluence of  Nehemiah,  bound  themselves  to  the  observance  of  the  sabbatical  years 
(Neh.  X.  32),  which,  being  frequently  mentioned  by  Josephus  (10),  must  have  been 
henceforth  the  general  practice.  The  laws  specially  relating  to  the  year  of  jubilee 
were,  on  the  contrary,  never  revived,  though  they  may  have  exercised  an  influence 
on  particular  civil  enactments  (11).  The  ordinance  of  the  sabbath  year,  later  enact- 
ments concerning  which  are  collected  in  Mishna  Sheiiith,  was  regarded  as  con- 
fined to  the  Holy  Land,  because  it  is  said.  Lev.  xxv.  2,  "  When  ye  be  come  into 
the  land, "  etc.,  (12).  There  was  no  sabbath  year  for  any  country  beyond  Palestine, 
though  certain  restrictions  prevailed  with  respect  to  Syria,  on  account  of  its  near 
relation  to  Palestine  (13). 

(1)  What  has  already  been  said  in  our  discussion  of  the  Sabbath  (§  148,  note  7) 
concerning  such  explanations,  is  generally  applicable  to  these  views.  On  the 
far-fetched  hypothesis  of  Hug,  id.  p.  10  sqq.,  see  the  article  quoted,  p.  210. 

(2)  Speaking  on  this  point,  Schnell  {Das  israel.  Recht,  p.  28)  very  justly  re- 
marks :  "Much  has  been  at  different  times  said  of  the  agricultural  and  political 
advantages  of  this  institution.  Moses,  however,  does  not  seem  to  have  expected 
much  from  the  prospect  of  such  advantages,  but  rather  to  have  anticipated  the 
opposition  of  the  ordinary  mind,  which  was  as  active  in  his  days  as  in  ours,  for 
here  again  he  simply  refers  the  people  to  the  old  fundamental  thought  of  the 
whole  sabbatical  system,  viz.  the  Divine  Messing.'''' 

(3)  See  Ewald,  Antiquities.,  p.  370  f.  :  "The  soil,  too,  has  its  Divine  right  to  a 
necessary  and  therefore  a  Divine  measure  of  rest  and  forbearance  ;  uor  must 
man  be  always  exercising  upon  it  his  desire  to  labor  and  acquire.  The  soil  yields 
its  produce  yearly,  like  a  debt  which  it  discharges  to  man,  and  upon  which  he 
may  calculate  as  the  reward  of  the  labor  he  has  bestowed  upon  it  ;  but  just  as 
we  cannot  be  at  all  times  demanding  payment  from  a  human  creditor,  so  must  the 
land  be  left  free  at  the  proper  season,  without  its  debt  being  exacted  from  it." 
There  is  assuredly  a  certain  ethical  relation  between  an  estate  and  its  owner  ; 
hence  the  poet,  Job  xxxi.  38  sq.,  makes  the  land  which  had  been  torn  from  its 
lord  cry  out,  and  its  furrows  weep,  because  they  do  not  bring  forth  for  their  law- 
ful owner.  How,  then,  should  not  the  owner,  on  the  other  hand,  have  compassion 
on  his  land  !  [This  rhetorical  conception  cannot  be  regarded  as  having  any  solid 
basis. — D.] 

(4)  The  notion  that' an  estate  dedicated  to  the  Deity  was  to  remain  unused,  was 
one  not  unknown  to  other  religions  also  ;  on  the  avei/ih'a  or  avera  among  the 
Greeks,  see  Hermann,  Oottesdienstl.  AUerthlimer  der  Qriechen,  §  20,  note  10. 

(5)  With  this  is  connected  the  thought,  again  to  use  Keil's  words,  id.,  "that 
the  end  of  life  for  the  Lord's  flock  does  not  consist  in  an  incessant  cultivation  of  the 
earth,  combined  with  anxious  labor  in  the  sweat  of  their  brow,  but  in  the  happy 
enjoyment  of  its  fruits,  which  the  Lord  their  God  gives  them  without  the  work 
of  tlieir  hands." 

(G)  The  regulations  in  Deut.  xxiii.  25  sq.  concerning  the  eating  of  grapes  and 
the  plucking  of  ears  of  corn,  so  different  from  our  ideas  of  the  complete  protection 
of  property,  arose  from  the  same  consideration. 

(7)  Thus  this  rest  which  God  would  every  seventh  year  bestow  upon  His  people, 
is,  according  to  the  intention  of  the  commandment,  no  more  a  rest  of  idle  in- 
action than  is  that  of  the  Sabbath-day.  For,  we  ask,  is  the  life  of  the  patri- 
archs, in  which  agriculture  was  only  an  incidental  occupation  (Gen.  xxvi.  12),  to 
be  regarded  as  a  life  of  idleness  ?  That  jniblic  reading  of  the  law  which  took 
place  at  tl^.e  beginning  of  the  year  involved,  as  has  been  already  mentioned,  a 
significant  exhortation  to  a  spiritual  employment  of  this  season.     Ewald  {id.  p.  372) 


§  153.]  EISTACTMENTS   CONCERKING   THE   PASSOVER.  345 

thinks  that  this  year  may  also  have  afforded   opportunity  for  the  more  connected 
and  continuous  instruction  of  both  children  and  adults. 

(8)  [On  the  question  of  the  Mosaic  origin  of  these  institutions,  comp.  the  ob- 
servations of  Dillmann  on  the  Sabbath  year,  p.  604  sq.  ;  on  the  year  of  jubilee, 
p.  606.] 

(9)  See  Bertheau  in  he,  and  the  Rabbinical  passages  in  Majus,  id.  p.  122  sq. 

(10)  Sabbatical  years  are  mentioned,  1  Mace.  vi.  49,  53  ;  Josephus,  Ant.  xiii. 
8.  1,  xiv.  10.  6,  XV.  1.  2  ;  Bell.  Jud.  i.  2.  4  ;  and  among  the  Samaritans  in  the 
days  of  Alexander  the  Great,  Ant.  xi.  8.  6. 

(11)  Comp.  Herzfeld,  Gesch.  des  VolJces  Israel,  ii.  p.  464. 

(12)  See  Maimonides,  id.  iv.  22.  For  the  distinction  made  (Shebiith  vi.  1) 
M'itli  respect  to  Palestine  itself,  between  the  region  taken  possession  of  by  the 
children  of  Israel  at  their  return  from  Babylon,  and  that  conquered  after  the  de- 
parture from  Egypt,  see  p.  212  of  the  article  quoted. 

(13)  Shebiith,  vi.  2,  5,  6  ;  Maimonides,  id.  iv.  23.  On  this  subject  comp. 
Geiger,  LesestilcJce  aus  der  Mischna,  pp.  75  sq.  and  79. 


III.    THE   THREE   PILGRIMAGE   FEASTS. 
(a)  THE    PASSOVER  (1). 

§153. 

Enactments  concerning  the  Solemnity. 

The  enactments  relating  to  the  Passover  are  found  in  Ex.  xii.  1-28,  43-49,  xiii. 
3-9,  xxiii.  15  ;  Lev.  xxiii.  5  sq.  ;  Num.  xxviii.  16-25  ;  Deut.  xvi.  1  sq.  Ex.  xii. 
1-20  contains  the  entire  law  of  the  Passover,  as  delivered  to  Moses  and  Aaron  be- 
fore the  fact  with  which  this  feast  was  to  be  connected  had  taken  place, — a  circum- 
stance the  consideration  of  which  will  obviate  many  apparent  difficulties.  Next 
follows  ver.  21  sqq.,  the  promulgation  of  the  law  by  Moses  to  the  people  ;  (Lis 
as  well  as  its  fulfilment  is  given,  in  accordance  with  the  circumstances  of  those 
times,  in  a  fragmentary  manner.  The  proceedings  at  the  celebration  of  the  Pass- 
over were  as  follow  :  Four  days  previously  (xii.  3),  the  paschal  lamb,  a  male  of 
a  year  old,  for  which  a  kid  might  be  substituted,  xii.  5,  was  to  be  set  apart,  one 
lamb  for  each  family  if  sufficiently  numerous  to  consume  it,  or  if  not,  one  for  two 
families  (2).  This  setting  apart  was  performed,  as  tradition  asserts,  in  a  solemn 
manner,  the  lamb  being  formally  consecrated,  and  every  member  of  the  household 
commanded  to  esteem  it  holy.  During  the  whole  of  the  festival  nothing  leavened 
might  be  eaten  (comp.  Deut.  xvi.  3)  ;  hence  on  the  14th  AbiborNisan  (the  spring 
month)  all  leaven  and  leavened  bread  were  cleared  out  of  the  hovse.  The  feast  itself 
was  to  commence  on  the  14th  Abib  by  the  slaughter  of  the  paschal  lamb  (P? 
D!?");!?!)  ;  on  the  different  meanings  of  this  expression,  see  the  remarks  on  the 
daily  burnt-offering  (§  131).  We  must  assume  (with  Hengstenberg)  that  in  gen- 
eral the  preparations  for  the  repast  took  place  on  the  14th,  and  the  repast  itself, 
which  formed  the  commencement  of  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread,  on  the  15th. 
At  the,;^r6-^  celebration  in  Egypt,  the  lamb  was  undoubtedly  slain  by  the  head  of 
the  family,  who  seems  on  this  occasion  to  have  taken  in  general  the  functions  of 
the  priest.  Thetwoside-postsand  the  lintel  of  the  door  were  to  be  sprinkled  with 
the  blood  of  the  animal.  This  was  siibsequently  omitted,  when  the  Passover 
was,  according  to  Deut,  xvi.  5-7,  solemnized  in  the  sanctuary,  and  the  slaughter 


34G    THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  153. 

of  the  lamb  took  place  in  its  court,— a  fact  alluded  to  in  Ex.  xxiii.  17.  In  the 
great  Passover  of  Hezekiah,  2  Chron.  xxx.  16  sq.,  the  Levites  had  the  charge  of 
killing  the  Passover  chiefly  for  those  who  were  not  clean  ;  in  that  of  Josiah,  on 
the  contrary,  xxxv,  11,  and  also  in  that  mentioned  Ezra  vi.  20,  the  Levites  were 
exclusively  intrusted  with  this  olfice.  The  slaying  was  subsequently  performed 
by  the  laity  also  (3).  The  blood  of  the  lambs  was  caught  by  the  priests,  and 
poured  out  or  sprinkled  upon  the  altar,  and  the  fat  was  burned  upon  it  (4).  The 
portions  to  be  cast  into  the  fire  are  called  n?!'  (burnt-offerings),  2  Chron.  xxxv.  12. 
The  whole  animal  was  then  eaten  that  same  night,  not  a  bone  of  it  being 
broken,  with  unleavened  loaves  (^i^i?)  and  bitter  herbs  (D"'"\'nD,  wild  lettuce,  wild 
endive,  etc.).  None  of  it  might  be  taken  out  of  the  house,  nor  was  any  of  it 
to  be  left  ;  if  however  any  portion  remained,  it  was  to  be  burned  next  morn- 
ing. At  the  first  Passover,  they  who  ate  it  were  to  be  ready  far  a  jburney  (their 
staff  in  their  hands,  their  shoes  on  their  feet,  and  their  loins  girded)  ;  hence  they 
were  to  eat  standing,  a  particular  subsequently  omitted.  It  seems  self-evident 
that  women  shared  in  the  repast  (5).  Strangers,  on  the  contrary,  might  not  partici- 
pate in  it,  until  incorporated  by  circumcision  among  the  covenant  people,  Ex.  xii. 
44,  48.  It  was  this  solemnity  which  was  properly  called  nOD  (6).  According  to  xii. 
13,  it  bore  this  name  in  remembrance  of  the  fact  that,  in  the  night  when  the  Lord 
slew  the  first-born  of  Egypt,  He  passed  over  and  simrcd  (nOS) — strictly  speaking 
(for  this  is  the  radical  meaning  of  the  word),  leaped  over — the  Israelites  (7).  On 
this  meaning  see  especially  Isa.  xxxi.  5,  where  the  context  shows  (compare  xxx. 
29)  that  it  is  the  Passover  that  is  alluded  to  (8).  In  remembrance  of  what 
occurred  at  the  institution  of  the  Passover,  the  head  of  the  household  was,  ac- 
cording to  the  subsequent  ritual,  with  which  we  are  not  immediately  concerned, 
to  relate,  in  conformity  with  Ex.  xii.  26  sq.,  the  history  of  the  deliverance  of  Israel 
during  that  night.  The  Hallel  was  then  chanted  by  the  assembled  family,  viz. 
Ps.  cxiii.  and  cxiv.,  after  the  second  cup  and  before  eating  the  lamb,  and  Ps.  cxv.- 
cxviii.  before  the  fourth  cup  (9).  The  seven  days  folloicing  the  Feast  of  the  Pass- 
over are  called  in  the  Pentateuch  m^on  Jin,  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread,  because 
on  them  such  bread  alone  might  be  eaten  ;  see  especially  Lev.  xxiii.  6-8.  In 
Deut.  xvi.  2,  the  CP/?'  offered  during  this  festal  season  are  also  comprised 
under  the  term  HpD, — the  oxen  mentioned  2  Chron.  xxxv.  7-9  being  used  for 
such  peace-offerings.  Hence  the  expression  paschal  food  may  also  be  used  of  the 
sacrificial  repasts  which  occurred  during  the  week  (10).  It  seems  also  probable  that 
the  eating  of  firstlings  spoken  of  in  Deut.  xv.  19  sq.  took  place  during  the  paschal 
week  (comp.  §  136.  1)  (11).  The  burnt-offerings  and  sin-offerings  prescribed  for 
the  festal  season  are  found  in  Num.  xxviii.  19-24.  The  first  and  seventh  days  of 
the  feast  week  were  days  of  rest ;  for  though  in  Deut.  xvi.  8  (comp.  Ex.  xiii.  6) 
the  sabbatical  character  of  the  seventh  day  only  is  asserted,  this  is  explained  by 
the  consideration  that  it  would  have  seemed  superfluous  expressly  to  ascribe  this 
character  to  the  first  and  chief  day  of  the  feast  ;  and  hence  we  find  that  the 
Deuteronomic  law  treats  this  point  in  the  same  manner  in  the  case  also  of  Pente- 
cost and  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  According  to  the  law,  Lev.  xxiii.  11,  15,  the 
sheaf  of  first  fruits  of  barley  was  to  be  offered,  i.e.  waved  before  the  Lord,  ^"^nDD 
n3t!?n,  on  "  the  morrow  after  the  Stibbath,"  as  a  consecration  of  the  harvest  which 


§  15o.]  ENACTMENTS   CONCERNING   THE    PASSOVER.  347 

was  now  commencing.  There  was,  however,  among  the  ancient  Jews,  a  dispute 
concerning  the  meaning  of  this  phrase.  The  Pharisees  [representing  the  prevalent 
tradition  ;  so  the  Septuagint,  Philo,  and  Josephus]  understood  it  of  the  day  after 
the.7??*,s^  day  of  the  feast,  thus  making  the  waving  of  the  sheaf  take  place  on  the  16th 
Nisan  ;  the  Sadducees,  of  the  day  after  the  weekly  Sabbath  occurring  in  the  time  of 
the  feast  (12).  Josh.  v.  11,  according  to  which  the  people  ate,  on  the  day  after 
the  Passover,  parched  corn  of  the  produce  of  the  land, — a  fact  which  presup- 
poses the  offering  of  the  sheaf  of  lirst-fruits, — decidedly  favors  the  former 
view  (13). 

(1)  The  literature  of  the  pilgrimage  feasts  is  chiefly  as  follows  ;  Hupfeld,  De 
primitiva,  etc.,  the  two  University  (Halle)  programmes  for  1851  and  1852  ;  Bach- 
mann's  Die  Fcstgesetze  des  Pentateuch,  1858,  chiefly  directed  against  Hupfeld. 
Comp.  also  W.  Schultz,  "Die  innere  Bedeutung  der  alttest.  Feste,"  Deutsche 
Zeitschr.  1857.  On  the  Passover  :  Baur,  "  Ueber  die  urspriingliche  Bedeutung  des 
Passahfestes  und  des  Beschneidungsritus, "  Tubinger  Zeitschr.  1832,  p.  40  sqq.  ; 
and  in  opposition  to  Baur,  Scholl,  in  Ivlaiber's  Stndien  der  evang.  Oeistlichkeit 
Wi'irttembergs,  vol.  v.,  and  Ba.hr,  Symholik,  ii.  p.  640  sq.  ;  Hengstenberg,  "Das 
Passah,"  Evang.  Kirchenzeitung,  1852,  No.  16;  [Delitzsch's  art.  "  Passah"  in 
RiehmJ. 

(2)  According  to  Josephus,  Bell.  Jud.  vi.  9.  3,  not  less  than  from  ten  to  twenty 
eaters  were  to  be  reckoned  to  one  lamb.  [According  to  later  tradition,  each  one 
should  receive  apiece  as  large  as  an  olive. — D.] 

(3)  The  number  of  Levites  would,  however,  have  scarcely  sufficed  for  the 
enormous  quantity  of  paschal  lambs.  At  Josiah's  Passover,  the  king  alone,  ac- 
cording to  2  Chron.  xxxv.  7,  distributed  thirty  thousand  lambs  to  the  people  ; 
while  at  the  last  Passover  held  at  Jerusalem,  the  paschal  ofl'erings  amounted, 
Josephus  tells  us,  to  256,500. 

(4)  According  to  tlie  undoubtedly  correct  statement  of  3Iishna  Pesach,  v.  0,  10. 
The  law  enacted  nothing  in  this  respect. 

(5)  The  Mishna  also  adopts  this  view.  According  to  the  Gemara,  however, 
they  were  not  obliged  to  be  present  as  the  males  were. 

(6)  In  the  Septuagint  ndaxa,  a  form  derived  from  the  Aramaic  *<nipD,  in  the 
Status  emphat. 

(7)  Hence  the  word  may  also  mean  "  to  limp."  On  the  other  hand,  it  cannot, 
as  Hengstenberg  supposes,  mean  "  to  save,  to  deliver;"  nor  can  it,  as  some  of 
the  Fathers  think,  and  as  Hengstenberg  supposes  possible,  be  connected  with 
ndcx'^-     Josephus,  Ant.  ii.  14.  6,  explains  the  word  by  vnepfiaaia. 

(8)  The  hypothesis  of  Baur,  id.,  that  np3  originally  signified  the  passing  of  the 
sun  into  the  sign  of  the  ram,  is  entirely  opposed  to  the  common  use  of  nD3.  This 
consideration  sufiices  to  overthrow  the  whole  hypothesis  which  connects  the 
Passover  with  the  Theban  spring  festival,  at  which  sacrifices  were  offered  to  Amun, 
the  ram-god,  i.e.  to  the  sun  entering  the  sign  of  the  ram.  Scholl  and  Biihr,  id., 
have  shown  how  groundless  this  hypothesis  is. 

(9)  Ps.  cxiii.-cxviii.  are  generally  called  the  great  Hallel,  though,  strictly 
speaking,  Ps.  cxxxvi.  might  rather  receive  this  appellation  :  "  Ogive  thanks  unto 
the  Lord,  for  He  is  good  ;  and  His  mercy  endureth  for  ever, "  etc.  This  Psalm 
was  said  at  the  close  of  the  repast,  after  the  Haggada-shel-pesahh,  the  assembled 
guests  responding  in  the  twenty-six  times  repeated  i'lpP  D/U  =    '^• 

(10)  This  has  been  applied,  as  is  well  known,  to  the  question  raised  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Gospel  of  John  in  respect  to  Christ's  celebration  of  the  Passover. 

(11)  See  Riehm,  Die  Oesetzgebung  Mosis  ivi  Laitde Moab,  p.  52. 

(12)  Hence  the  varying  computations  as  to  the  time  of  this  festival,  comp. 
§155. 

(13)  The  theory  started  by  Hitzig,  revived  by  Hupfeld,  and  refuted  by  Bahr, 


348   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  154. 

that  the  Passover  always  began  on  a  Sunday  and  terminated  on  the  21st  Nisan  on 
a  Saturday,  and  that  this  Sabbath  is  meant  by  n3t?n  ^"^nsp,  presupposes  an 
arrangement  of  the  year  making  it  always  begin  on  a  Sunday,  of  which  there  is  no 
kind  of  proof.  Tha  after  Passover,  Num.  iv.  11,  which  was  to  be  kept  by  such 
Israelites  as  had  been  prevented  by  ceremonial  uncleanness  from  celebrating  the 
Passover,  and  subsequently  by  those  also  who  could  not  reach  the  sanctuary  in 
time,  has  been  already  mentioned,  §  145. 


§154. 

Significance  of  the  Feast  of  the  Passover,  and  Questions  connected  with  it. 

According  to  what  has  been  stated,  the  significance  of  the  Feast  of  the  Passover 
was,  generally  speaking,  an  historical  one  ;  it  was,  that  is  to  say,  celebrated  in 
rememhrance  of  the  deliverance  of  Israel  from  Egypt.  By  keeping  this  festival,  the 
Israelite  testified  that  he  belonged  to  that  people  whom  the  Lord  had,  by  this 
act  of  deliverance,  made  His  own  possession  (1).  In  an  agrarian  point  of  view, 
this  feast  was  also  the  consecration  of  the  beginning  of  harvest.  Its  special  import 
is  more  difficult  to  define.  First,  it  may  be  asked  whether  the  Passover  transaction 
proper  is  to  be  regarded  in  the  light  of  a  sacrifice.  This  question  was  an  apple  of 
discord  between  the  Romish  and  the  Protestant  theologians.  The  former,  in  the 
interest  of  their  doctrine  of  sacrifice,  affirmed  that  it  was  ;  the  latter,  for  the 
same  reason,  felt  bound  to  deny  it,  lest  some  doctrinal  support  should  thus  be 
furnished  to  the  Romish  mass.  Certain  Reformed  theologian^,  however,  e.g. 
Vitringa,  entertained  less  prejudiced  views.  Among  moderns,  Hofmann  has  (in  his 
Schrifiheweis)  disputed  the  sacrificial  character  of  the  Passover  ;  and  his  view  has 
been  refuted  upon  valid  grounds  by  Kurtz  (2).  That  no  complete  act  of  sacri- 
fice took  place  at  the  first  Passover  is  evident,  the  whole  system  of  sacrifice  being 
of  later  enactment ;  still  the  manipulation  of  the  blood,  by  which  the  repast  was 
preceded,  had  a  thoroughly  sacrificial  import.  The  Passover  is,  moreover,  ex- 
hibited in  an  expressly  sacrificial  point  of  view  when  it  is  said  of  it,  Ex.  xii.  27, 
nin'7  $<in  nD|!-n3T,  [it  is  Passover-sacrifice  to  Jehovah]  comp.  xxxiv.  25  ;  and 
when  Num.  ix.  7,  13  designates  its  celebration  as  niri'  |31p-n{<  S'^ipn.  So  too  it 
is  said,  1  Cor.  v,  7  :  ro  TT-aox"-  viJ^i^v  hWr/  :  and  Philo  and  Josephus  both  call  it  a 
sacrifice.  The  next  question  is,  Under  what  class  of  sacrifices  is  the  Passover  to  be 
comjn-ised  ?  Does  it  belong  to  the  sin-offerings,  or  is  it  more  akin  to  the  peace- 
offcrings?  The  former  is  maintained  by  Hengstenberg.  "The  Passover,"  he 
says,  "  is  a  sin-offering  in  the  fullest  and  most  special  sense. "  But  this  view  is 
absolutely  irreconcilable  with  the  most  important  feature  of  the  Passover,  viz.  the 
consumption  of  the  sacred  animal  by  the  family  in  whose  name  it  was  offered.  It 
is  beside  the  question  to  cite  the  eating  of  the  flesh  of  the  sin-offerings  by  the 
priests,  for  this  was  not  done  for  the  sake  of  their  feeding  on  it  (as  has  been 
shown,  §  139)  ;  and  the  priest  might  not  eat  of  the  sin-offering  offered  for  him- 
self. The  repast  places  the  Passover  in  the  class  of  the  peace-offerings  ;  and  since 
there  can  be  no  peace-offering  without  an  atonement,  which  is  effected  by  the 
sprinkling  of  the  blood,  the  Passover  presupposes  an  act  of  expiation  effected  by 
the  application  of  the  blood  of  the  paschal  lamb.  But  to  say  that  the  paschal 
lamb  suffered  death  vicariously— that  at  the  institution  of  the  solemnity  it  died 


§  154.]  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  FEAST  OF  THE  PASSOVER.  349 

in  the  place  of  the  first-born  of  Israel  who  had  properly  incurred  death — is  to 
assert  that  to  which  there  is  absolutely  no  allusion.  The  pure  life  of  the  victim 
offered  up  in  the  blood  served  for  a  covering^  and  therefore  for  a  purification  for 
the  family  approaching  the  sacred  meal.  The  application  of  the  blood  to  the 
door-posts  of  the  house,  which  formed  the  place  of  sacrifice  at  the  first  Passover, 
had  the  same  significance  as  the  atonement  and  purification  of  the  sanctuary  with 
the  blood  of  the  sacrifice  on  the  Day  of  Atonement,  Lev.  xvi.  16.  Covered  and 
purified  by  this  blood,  the  house  was  secured  against  the  destroying  angel,  who 
went  through  the  land  of  Egypt,  which  had  incurred  the  Divine  judgment. 
Thus  the  blood  of  atonement  certainly  is,  as  Hengstenberg  expresses  it,  the  wall 
of  partition  between  the  people  of  God  and  the  world  (3). 

The  repast  bore  throughout  the  character  of  a  feast.  At  the  first  Passover,  the 
intention  that  the  liberated  people  should  commence  their  journey  out  of  Egypt  in 
the  strength  of  this  food,  was  included.  Thus,  too,  the  Israelite  received  at  each 
Passover  new  strength  for  the  year  just  commenced.  An  individual  was  not,  however, 
to  celebrate  this  feast,  which  was  to  be  an  act  of  communion  of  the  whole  household. 
Each  family  was  at  this  repast  to  recognize  that  it  was  an  integral  element  of  the 
covenant  people  ;  and  on  the  entire  transaction  was  impressed  the  confession, 
''^ As  for  me  and  my  house,  we  will  serve  the  Lord"  (Josh.  xxiv.  15).  The 
prohibition  against  hreahing  a  hone  of  the  paschal  lamb,  certainly  meant  more  than 
an  injunction  not  to  treat  it  like  an  ordinary  slaughtered  animal  ;  it  required 
(comp.  the  use  of  the  expression,  Ps.  xxxiv.  21)  the  preservation  of  the  lamb  in 
its  entireness  as  a  sign  that  those  who  were  partakers  of  it  were  united  in  inseparable 
communion.  Bahr  rightly  appeals  in  elucidation  to  the  analogous  passage,  1  Cor. 
X.  17.  The  prohibition  also  of  carrying  any  of  it  out  of  their  houses  refers  to  that 
complete  union  of  every  family  which  the  theocratic  institutions  enacted. 
Unleavened  bread  was,  on  account  of  its  purity,  to  be  eaten  during  the  whole 
period  of  the  feast  ;  comp,  above  on  leaven,  §  124,  and  in  elucidation,  1  Cor. 
V.  7  sq.  As  the  newly  consecrated  priests  were  to  eat  unleavened  bread  seven 
days  (see  Ex.  xxix.  30  sqq.  in  connection  with  ver.  2),  so  also  was  Israel  to  do 
when  thus  celebrating  its  election  to  be  the  priestly  nation.  Ex,  xiii.  8  and 
Deut.  xvi.  3,  which  connect  an  historical  reminiscence,  viz.  that  of  the  haste  of 
the  departure  from  Egypt,  with  the  use  of  nnleavened  bread,  are  not  in  opposition 
to  this  idea,  Deuteronomy  in  particular  being  distinguished  by  its  multiplica- 
tion of  motives.  Whether  this  bread  is  called  ''^X.  ^^^:  in  the  passage  in  Deuter- 
onomy because  its  insipidity  recalled  the  fare  of  their  Egyptian  bondage,  or 
merely  because  it  was  eaten  at  their  deliverance  from  this  affliction,  must  be  left 
undecided.  Tlie  bitter  herbs  were  certainly  a  sign  of  the  bitterness  of  Egyptian 
slavery,  with  which  the  fact  of  their  imparting  a  seasoning  to  the  repast  is  not 
inconsistent  (4), 

(1)  Hupfeld,  id.,  denies,  without  any  valid  reason,  the  historical  import  of  the 
Passover,  and  says  that  an  historical  occasion  for  its  institution  was  a  subsequent 
invention.  We  might  just  as  well  maintain  that  the  institution  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  was  the  invention  of  a  later  age.  [According  to  Wellhausen  (i.  85  sqq.) 
the  feast,  as  Mazzoth-feast,  was  originally  a  harvest  festival,  and  as  such  of  Canaan- 
itish  origin  (p.  !)5  sq.),  since  the  keeping  of  a  harvest  festival  presupposes  a  settled 
population  devoted  to  agriculture.  As  a  Passover  festival,  however,  it  was 
originally  the  festival  of  the  offering  of  the  firstlings  of  cattle.     The  history  of 


350   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AND  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  155. 

the  slaying  of  the  first-born  of  the  Egyptians  arose  from  this  custom  :  it  occasioned 
the  tradition  that  God  had  violently  taken  from  Pharaoh  the  first-born  of  man 
because  Pharaoh  had  not  consented  that  the  Hebrews  should  celebrate  in  the 
wilderness  the  festival  of  the  ofl'ering  of  the  first-born.  The  historical  motive  for 
the  Passover  was  not  fully  completed  till  the  composition  of  Deuteronomy. — But 
aside  from  the  consideration  that  it  is  a  mere  assumption  that  the  living  God 
could  not  have  performed  an  act  like  the  slaying  of  the  first-born  of  Egypt  for 
the  redemption  of  his  people,  Wellhausen  is  obliged  to  abandon  any  explanation 
of  the  word  Passover  (p.  89)  ;  he  is  forced  to  explain  the  unleavened  bread,  by 
which  he  understands  the  bread  baked  in  haste,  thus:  "First,  mainly  at  the 
beginning  of  harvest,  there  was  not  time  to  leaven,  knead,  and  bake  the  new  meal, 
but  a  kind  of  cake  baked  in  the  ashes  was  quickly  made  of  it"  (p.  88).  And  the 
refutation  furnished  by  the  earliest  passages,  namely,  the  book  of  the  Covenant 
(Ex.  xxiii.  15),  and  the  old  law  (Ex.  xxxix.  18),  of  the  position  that  the  historical 
signification  of  the  feast  is  of  so  late  origin,  he  is  obliged  simply  to  set  aside  at  a 
dash  by  the  remark  on  the  words,  "  for  in  it  thou  camest  out  of  Egypt,"  "It  seems 
as  if  the  reference  to  the  march  out  of  Egypt,  Ex.  xxiii.  15,  was  introduced  into 
it,  at  a  later  editing,  from  the  entirely  identical  passage  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  18  "  (p.  89). 

(2)  See  Hofmann,  Schriftieiceis,  ii.  ed.  2,  p.  270  sqq.  ;  Kurtz,  History  of  the 
Old  Covenant,  ii.  p.  297  sqq. 

(3)  Hupfeld  also  aptly  compares  what  was  done  at  the  consecration  and  investi- 
ture of  tlie  priests,  Ex.  xxix.  20,  when  the  blood  of  the  ram  was  applied  for 
atonement  and  purification  to  the  ear,  hand,  and  foot  of  the  priest  (§  95).  Comp. 
also  the  purification  of  the  leper. 

(4)  The  Passover,  as  a  sacrifice,  l^eing  connected  with  the  sanctuary,  the 
Israelites  in  exile  celebrate  it  without  the  sacrificial  lamb. 


(b)    THE   FEAST   OP   WEEKS. 

§  155. 

The  Feast  of  Weeks  (Pentecost),  ni^Ot^n  jn,  owes  its  name  to  the  fact  that  it  was 
to  be  celebrated  seven  weeks  after  the  Passover.  The  viore  particular  determina- 
tion of  its  time  is,  however,  a  subject  of  dispute,  inasmuch  as  this  depends  on  the 
already  mentioned  (§  153)  and  variously  understood  passage,  Lev.  xxiii.  15  sq. 
It  is  there  said  :  "Ye  shall  count  unto  you  riat^n  JTinTpp  from  the  morrow  after 
the  Sabbath,  from  the  day  that  ye  brought  the  wave  sheaf,"  nb'rDIjI  r\in3K'  ^IW 
n^^'ip^  (seven  full  Sabbaths  shall  there  be).  If  the  Sabbath  was,  as  we,  §  153  (accord- 
ing to  the  usual  interpretation),  thought  most  probable,  the  first  day  of  the  paschal 
feast,  nir\3ti'  here  means  weeks.  The  word  has  this  meaning  in  Aramaic,  and  the 
predicate  nb'pn  favors  it ;  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy  substitutes  ^W^^  ^y,^P. 
It  must  therefore  be  translated  :  "  seven  whole  weeks  shall  there  be"  (and  ver.  16  : 
"  till  the  day  following  after  the  seventh,  week").  According  to  this  computa- 
tion, which  thus  makes  the  terminus  a  quo,  the  sheaf-day  to  be  the  16th  Nisan, 
the  Feast  of  Pentecost  would  always  fall  on  the  same  day  of  the  week  as  the  16th 
Nisan.  And  such  is  the  modern  Jewish  custom.  If  the  other  explanation  of 
ni^T\  ninrap  (ver.  15),  which  makes  the  expression  r)Td  mean  the  Sabbath  proper 
(Saturday),  be  adopted,  the  Feast  of  Weeks  would,  on  the  contrary,  have  always 
been  kept  on  a  Sunday  (1).  The  second  name  of  this  feast  was  1'¥p,n  JH  (the  feast 
of  harvest),  or  Dn03n  jn  (the  feast  of  first-fruits).  Accordingly  it  has  in  the  Penta- 
teuch the  significance  of  a  harvest  thanksgiving  ;  and  indeed  of  a  feast  of  thanks- 
giving for  the  compZe^eJ  harvest, — the  Feast  of  Weeks  thus  bearing  the  same  re- 


§  156.]  THE   FEAST   OF   TABERNACLES.  361 

lation  to  the  wheat  harvest  as  the  Passover  did  to  the  harley  harvest,  which  was 
the  first  crop  reaped.  An  historical  meaning  v^^as  first  given  to  this  feast  by  the 
later  Jews,  who  made  it  refer  to  the  giving  of  the  law  upon  Mount  Sinai,  which  is 
said  by  Jewish  tradition  to  have  taken  place  on  the  fiftieth  day  after  the  depart- 
ure from  Egypt,  while  Ex.  xix.  1  states  quite  generally  that  it  was  in  the  third 
month.     This  reference,  however,  is  not  yet  mentioned,  even  in  Philo. 

The  central  point  in  the  religious  celebnition  of  this  festival  of  one  day's  dura- 
tion, was  the  offering  of  the  two  loaves  of  first- fruiti  for  the  whole  people,  and  not, 
as  some  have  understood  the  law,  for  each  house.  As  the  wave  sheaf  at  the  Pass- 
over was  a  sign  that  the  harvest  had  begun,  so  were  these  wave  loaves,  DDy 
np^JJ^n,  a  sign  that  the  Harvest  was  completed.  Being  prepared  and  leavened 
from  the  flour  of  the  newly  reaped  wheat,  Lev.  xxiii.  17,  the  ordinary  food  of  the 
people  was  hallowed  in  them.  As  leavened,  they  could  not  be  burned  upon  the 
altar,  but  were  to  be  consumed  by  the  priests.  With  the  offering  of  these  loaves 
were  combined  large  burnt,  sin,  and  peace  offerings,  ver.  18.  The  directions  in 
Num.  xxviii.  27  sqq.  differ  somewhat  from  this  law.  If  two  kinds  of  offering  are 
to  be  understood  in  the  two  passages,  the  general  festival  sacrifices  are  intended 
in  Num.  xxviii. ,  and  only  the  pentecostal  offerings  which  accompanied  the  two 
loaves  in  Lev.  xxiii.  18.  The  feast  was  enlivened  by  festal  repasts,  Deut.  xvi.  11, 
which  were  furnished  by  the  free-will  offerings,  and  served  at  the  same  time 
as  benefactions  ;  for  Levites,  strangers,  widows,  and  orphans  were  to  partake  of 
them. 

(1)  [Dillmaun  also  takes  nin3K^  in  the  sense  of  weeks,  but  holds  that  not  every 
week,  but  only  that  ending  with  the  Sabbath  could  be  so  called,  and  finds  there- 
fore in  this  passage  a  proof  for  the  position  that  by  the  Sabbath,  according  to 
which  the  bringing  of  the  wave  sheaf  was  regulated,  the  week  is  to  be  under- 
stood.] 

(c)    THE   FEAST   OP   TABEENACLES. 

§  156. 

The  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  r\i3Dn  JH,  was  kept  in  the  seventh  month  (Tisri), 
from  the  fifteenth  day  onward.  Its  duration  was  strictly  only  seven  days.  To 
these  was  added  an  eighth,  also  of  a  sabbatical  character,  the  so-called  ^'?.yj?,,  Lev. 
xxiii.  36  (of  which  hereafter).  The  historic  imjMrt  of  this  feast  w^as  to  remind 
the  people,  by  a  seven  days'  dwelling  in  booths  made  of  boughs,  of  the  wander- 
ing of  their  fathers  in  the  wilderness,  during  which  they  had  to  dwell  in  booths. 
Lev.  xxiii.  43  sq.  The  admission  of  this  festival  into  Zechariah's  prophecy  of 
Messianic  times,  Zech.  xiv.  18,  is  undoubtedly  founded  on  the  kindred  thought, 
that  the  keeping  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  is  an  expression  on  the  part  of  the 
nations,  of  their  thankfulness  for  the  termination  of  their  wanderings,  by  their 
reception  into  the  peaceful  kingdom  of  the  Messiah.  According  to  its  agrarian 
imx>ort,  this  feast  was  'TP^H  Jn,  Ex.  xxiii.  16,  the  feast  of  ingathering,  i.e.  of 
fruit  and  wine,  in  which  respect  it  terminated  the ■  agricultural  year.  It  was  the 
greatest  feast  of  rejoicing  of  the  year,  and  provided  with  more  numerous  sacrifices 
than  the  others.  Num.  xxix.  12-34  (1).  Very  splendid  ceremonies  were  subse- 
quently added  to  it,  especially  the  daily  libation  of  water,  probably  with  reference 


352   THE  COVENANT  OF  GOD  WITH  ISRAEL  AKD  THE  THEOCRACY.    [§  156. 

to  Isa.  xii.  3,  and  the  illumination  of  the  court  on  the  first  day  of  the  feast, — cus- 
toms to  which  perhaps  the  words  of  Christ,  John  vii.  37,  viii.  12,  may  refer  (2). 
The  eighth  day  of  the  feast  bore,  as  we  have  said,  the  name  of  ^";.V£,  Lev.  xxiii. 
36,  Num.  xxix.  35,  wliich  is  also  applied,  Deut.  xvi.  8,  to  the  closing  day  of  the 
paschal  week.  The  explauatiou  of  this  word,  a  cohibltione  operis,  from  the  inter- 
mission of  labor,  is  improbable,  as  not  showing  why  the  name  applies  to  these 
two  days  only.  The  expression  probably  means  conclusion,  viz.  of  the  feast-time  ; 
and  it  is  thus  understood  by  the  LXX,  who  render  it  by  i^odiov  in  the  passages  cited 
(8).  The  Atsereth  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  however,  undoubtedly  signified 
not  merely  the  clausula  festi,  but  also  tlie  close  of  the  viliole  annual  cycle  of  feasts 
(4).  Hence  the  ^"y^V..,  was  riglitly  regarded  by  the  Jews  as  a  separate  feast,  to  which 
a  further  festival  was  also  subsequently  added  on  the  23d  Tisri,  viz.  the  rejoicing 
of  the  la,w  (rriinn  nnpt^),  to  celebrate  the  termination  of  the  annual  reading  of 
the  law. 

Thus  the  festal  half  of  the  Israelitish  ecclesiastical  year  coincided  with  the 
season  in  which  the  annual  bounties  of  nature  were  gathered  ;  while  during  the 
wintry  half  of  the  year,  on  the  contrary,  the  course  of  the  Sabbaths  and  new 
moons  was,  according  to  the  Mosaic  ritual,  uninterrupted  by  festivals  (5). 

(1)  Josephus  and  Philo  consider  it  in  every  resjiect  the  chief  festival  of  the 
year. 

(2)  Isa.  xii.  3  :  "With  joy  shall  ye  draw  water  out  of  the  wells  of  salvation." 
Most  probably  John  vii.  37,  "  In  the  last  day,  that  great  day  of  the  feast,  Jesus 
stood  and  cried,  saying.  If  any  man  thirst,  let  him  come  unto  me  and  drink," 
refers  to  the  pouring  out  of  water,  of  which  it  has  been  said  that  he  who  has  not 
seen  the  rejoicing  at  the  drawing  of  water  at  the  Fea,st  of  Tabernacles  does  not 
know  what  rejoicing  is.  Perhaps  viii.  12,  "I  am  the  light  of  the  world  ;  he  that 
followeth  me  shall  not  walk  in  darkness,  but  shall  have  the  light  of  life,"  may  refer 
to  the  illumination.  It  is  quite  intelligible  that  the  Greeks  (see  Plutarch,  Sympos. 
iv.  6.  2)  should  regard  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  on  account  of  its  connection 
with  the  vintage,  as  a  feast  of  Bacchus  ;  it  is  only  unintelligible  that  many  moderns 
should  have  laid  any  weight  on  such  a  circumstance. 

(3)  On  the  other  hand,  the  expression  subsequently  acquired  the  further  mean- 
ing of  a  solemn  assembly,  Joel  i.  14.  Compare  the  use  of  the  word  H^iTj^.,  2  Kings 
X.  20.  [Dillmann  on  Lev.  xxiii.  36  holds  that  the  word  signifies  iirst  an  assembly, 
and  then  in  a  derived  sense,  a  day  of  assembly,  and  tliat  the  signification  conclu- 
sion, or  day  of  conclusion,  is  not  sustained  by  the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  word.] 

(4)  So  Philo,  de  septen.  §  24,  ed.  Mang.  ii.  p.  298,  understood  the  matter. 

(5)  It  was  not  till  afterward  that  the  Feast  of  the  Dedication  in  the  ninth,  and 
the  Feast  of  Purim  in  the  twelfth  month,  with  which  we  are  not  at  present  con- 
cerned, were  inserted.     See  §  191,  and  the  article  cited,  p.  388  sq. 


PART  IL-PROPHETISM. 


FIRST  SECTION. 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  THEOCRACY,  FROM  THE  DEATH  OF  JOSHUA 
TO  THE  CLOSE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  REVELATIOiN. 


FIRST  DIVISION. 

THE   TIMES   OF   THE   JUDGES. 

I.— THE   DISINTEGRATION   OF   THE   THEOCRACY  TILL   THE 
TIMES   OF   SAMUEL. 

§157. 

Course  of  Events.     Import  of  the  Office  of  Judge. 

The  history  of  the  period  of  the  judges,  when  viewed  from  the  theocratic  point 
of  view  in  which  it  is  presented  in  the  Book  of  Judges,  and  especially  in  the 
second  introduction  to  this  book  (ch.  ii.  6-iii.  6)  (1),  exhibits  a  constant  alter- 
nation between  the  apostasy  of  the  people  and  their  consequent  chastisement  by 
the  Divine  Power,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  return  of  the  people  to  their  God 
and  the  Divine  deliverances  therewith  connected,  on  the  other.  The  course  of 
events  during  the  three  centuries  preceding  the  time  when  Samuel  filled  the  post 
of  Judge,  may  be  generally  described  as  follows  : — After  Joshua,  who  had  no 
immediate  successor,  and  the  other  elders,  who  "  had  known  all  the  works  of  the 
Lord  that  He  had  done  for  Israel"  (Josh.  xxiv.  31),  had  passed  from  the  scene, 
the  nation  was  left  to  itself,  that  its  life  might  now  be  freely  developed  under 
theocratic  institutions.  So  long  as  the  remembrance  of  the  Divine  manifestations 
survived,  the  people  remained  faithful  to  these  institutions.  Even  the  internal 
war  against  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  related  in  the  sequel  of  the  Book  of  Judges 
(ch.  xix.-xxi.),  which,  occurring  during  the  high-priesthood  of  Phinehas  (ac- 
cording to  XX.,  27  sq.),  must  have  been  waged  shortly  after  the  death  of  Joshua, 
is  an  indication  that  the  theocratic  zeal  of  the  nation  had  as  yet  suffered  no 
diminution.  This  is,  however,  the  last  occasion  for  many  years  on  which  we 
meet  with  the  united  action  of  the  whole  people.  For  Joshua  having  committed 
the  completion  of  the  work  of  conquest  to  the  individual  tribes,  it  ceased  to  b9 


354  THE  BEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  THEOCRACY.         [§  157. 

the  common  concern  of  the  nation,  and  ojiportunity  was  thus  given  for  the  pro- 
motion of  private  interests.  The  several  tribes  were  not  always  entirely  success- 
ful in  the  petty  warfare  which  they  carried  on  ;  some  of  the  still  remaining 
Canaanites  were  not  subdued  ;  against  others  the  sentence  of  extermination  was 
not  strictly  carried  out.  Those  who  were  rendered  merely  tributary,  and  suf- 
fered to  dwell  among  the  Israelites,  not  only  seduced  the  people  to  the  service  of 
Canaanitish  gods,  but  also  gradually  regained  the  mastery  in  isolated  parts  of  the 
land.  Irruptions  of  great  nomadic  hordes  of  Midiauites  and  Amalekites  from 
the  east  ensued,  while  the  nation  was  repeatedly  exposed  to  danger  from  the 
hostile  attacks  of  the  neighboring  Moabites  and  Ammonites.  In  the  West,  the 
power  of  the  Philistine  Pentapolis,  situate  on  the  low-lying  plains  near  the 
Mediterranean,  became  increasingly  formidable  after  the  middle  period  of  the 
judges.  The  oppressions  which  the  Israelites  suffered  at  the  liand  of  these 
different  nations  usually  extended  only  to  certain  tribes  ;  but  this  very  circumstance 
was  the  reason  why  even  these  afflictions  were  not  capable  of  drawing  the  tribes 
out  of  their  isolation,  and  uniting  them  in  a  common  enterjirise.  Such  slothful 
selfishness  on  the  part  of  individual  tribes,  in  withdrawing  from  the  national 
cause,  is  sharply  reproved  in  the  Song  of  Deborah,  Judg.  v.  15-17  (2). 

In  times  of  oppression  like  these  (when  the  children  of  Israel  cried  unto  the 
Lord,  eh,  iii.  9,  15,  iv.  3,  etc.),  individual  men — the  Judges — arose,  who,  aroused 
by  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah,  turned  back  the  hearts  of  the  people  to  their  God, 
revived  in  them  the  remembrance  of  God's  dealings  with  them  in  past  times,  and 
then  broke  the  hostile  yoke  under  which  they  were  suffering.  The  whole  aim 
of  the  narrative  in  this  book  is  not,  however,  fulfilled  in  the  glorification  of  these 
men  as  the  heroes  of  the  nation — its  design  being  rather  to  show  that  the  help 
afforded  was  the  result  of  an  outpouring  of  the  Divine  Spirit  ;  and  that  God,  in 
effecting  the  deliverance  of  His  people,  made  choice  of  the  lowly  and  despised  as 
His  instruments.  Compare  what  we  find  said  of  Shamgar,  iii.  ,31.  Very  in- 
structive in  this  respect  is  the  history  of  Gideon,  the  most  prominent  among  the 
earlier  judges  ;  see  such  passages  as  vi.  15,  vii.  2  (3).  It  was  on  this  account 
that  these  ministers  of  the  theocracy  were  called,  not  kings  or  rulers,  but  Sho- 
phetim  (judges).  This  name  must  not,  however,  be  specially  restricted  to  the 
exercise  of  the  judicial  office,  though  its  performance  is  asserted  in  the  cases  of 
Deborah  (iv.  5),  Eli,  and  Samuel  (4),  and  must  be  assumed  in  that  of  others,  so 
far  as  they  remained  for  any  length  of  time  at  the  head  either  of  the  whole  nation 
or  of  single  tribes.  The  word,  however,  has  a  wider  meaning,  and  represents  these 
men  as  advocates  of  those  Divine  claims  which  it  was  their  part  to  maintain  and 
restore.  The  office  of  judge  was  neither  permanent  nor  hereditary,  but  purely 
personal.  Called  to  a  prominent  position  by  the  necessities  of  the  times,  they 
acted  with  energy  in  the  affairs  of  the  individual  tribes  at  the  head  of  which 
they  were  placed,  but  exercised  no  abiding  influence  upon  the  nation,  which,  on 
the  contrary,  relapsed  into  its  former  course,  when  its  burdens  were  lightened 
or  when  the  judge  was  dead  ;  comp.  especially  the  passage  ii.  lG-19  (5). 

(1}  There  is,  at  the  commencement  of  the  Book  of  Judges,  a  double  introduction, 
ch.  i.-iii.  6,  designed  to  serve  as  a  key  to  the  course  upon  which  the  history  of 
Israel  now  enters.  Comp.  Cassel,  The  Book  of  Judges,  Introduction  :  "  The  first 
two  chapters  form  a  practical  introduction  to  the  history  of  the  book  in  general. 


§  158.]  DECLIKE   OF   THE  THEOCRATIC   INSTITUTIOKS.  355 

They  explain  tlio  pomhilify  of  the  ensuing  events  :  tlie  germs  of  the  approaching 
apostasy  could  not  have  hiin  in  tlic  history  of  Joshua,  for  lie  followed,  in  the 
spirit  of  the  law,  the  footsteps  of  Moses.  The  ground  [of  the  apostasy]  lay  in  the 
proceedings  of  the  tribes  after  his  decease." 

(2)  In  the  Song  of  Deborah,  Judg.  v.,  after  praising  those  tribes  which  had 
taken  part  with  her  in  the  conflict,  she  continues  15-17:  "At  the  brooks  of 
Reuben  there  were  great  resolves  of  heart.  Why  didst  thou  remain  among 
the  sheepfolds?  At  the  brooks  of  Reuben  there  were  great  resolves  of  heart. 
Gilead  remained  beyond  Jordan  ;  and  why  did  Dan  remain  in  ships  ?  and  why 
did  Asher  continue  on  the  sea-shore,  and  remain  in  his  creeks?" 

(3)  How  deeply  the  deliverance  wrought  by  Gideon  was  imprinted  on  the 
memory  of  the  nation,  is  evident  from  Isa.  ix.  3,  x.  26,  Ps.  Ixxxiii.  10,  12.  For 
further  particulars,  see  the  article  "Gideon"  in  Herzog's  Eeal-Encykloj).  [and  in 
Smith's  Bible  Dictionary]. 

(4)  Of  Samuel  it  is  stated,  1  Sam.  vii.  16,  that  he  administered  justice  in  various 
places  of  the  land  ;  and,  viii.  2,  that  he  made  his  sons  judges  in  Beer-sheba  (art. 
"  Gericht  und  Gerichtsverwaltung"). 

(5)  Most  of  the  judges  seem,  after  effecting  the  work  of  deliverance  to  which 
they  were  called,  to  have  remained  for  the  rest  of  their  lives  at  the  head  of  a  por- 
tion of  the  nation  (art.  "  Volk  Gottes"). 


§  158. 

ReUgio2is  Condition :  Decline  of  the  Theocratic  Institutions, 

The  state  of  religion  during  the  period  of  the  judges,  the  decline  of  the  theo- 
cratic institutions,  and  the  intermingling  of  the  worship  of  Jehovah  with  the 
Canaanitish  deiiication  of  nature,  are  abundantly  manifest  from  the  description  of 
the  nation  just  given.  But  are  we  justified,  it  may  be  asked,  in  speaking  of  a 
decline  of  theocratic  institutions,  and  does  the  Book  of  Judges  really  presuppose  a 
legislation  and  a  history  such  as  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Book  of  Joshua  attest  ? 
(1).  Does  it  not  rather  exhibit  an  embryonic  and  undeveloped  condition  in  which 
those  elements  are  still  fermenting,  from  which  a  system  of  theocratic  institutions 
was  subsequently  consolidated  ?  (2).  This  latter  view  is  opposed,  generally  speak- 
ing, not  only  to  the  already  mentioned  express  declaration  in  ch.  ii.  (especially 
ver.  10  sq.),  but  also  to  the  manner  in  which  the  present  condition  of  the  people 
is  contrasted  wuth  their  past  glories  (3)  in  the  Song  of  Deborah  (ch.  v.  4),  the 
genuineness  of  which  not  one  has  yet  ventured  to  impugn.  So  far,  however,  as 
religiovs  institutions  in  particular  are  concerned,  it  must  be  observed  that  it  is 
foreign  to  the  entire  purpose  of  the  Book  of  Judges  to  enter  into  the  subject,  and 
consequently  the  inference  that  institutions  not  mentioned  therein  could  not  have 
existed,  is  utterly  unjustified.  This  applies  equally  to  the  Book  of  Joshua,  which 
confessedly  presupposes  the  Pentateuch.  If,  e.g.^  it  were  to  be  inferred  that, 
because  an  annual  festival  (whether  that  of  Tabernacles  or  the  Passover)  at  the 
national  sanctuary  is  mentioned  but  once  in  the  Book  of  Judges  (ch.  xxi.  19),  no 
such  cycle  of  festivals  as  is  prescribed  in  the  Pentateuch  as  yet  existed,  this  would 
equally  apply  to  the  Book  of  Joshua,  which  mentions  a  festival,  viz.  the  Passover, 
only  in  a  single  passage  (ch.  v.  10),  and  also  to  the  subsequent  historical  books, 
with  the  exception  of  Chronicles.  There  are,  however,  quite  sufficient  data  in  the 
Book  of  Judges  to  show  that,  although  during  this  period  and  down  to  Samuel 
the  injunctions  or  ordinances  of  the  law  were  for  the  most  part  neglected,  and  in 


356  TEtE   DEVELOPMENT   OE"  THE   THEOCRACY.  [§  158. 

some  particulars  not  yet  introduced,  the  theocratic  institutions,  as  they  are  said  to 
have  existed  under  Moses  and  Joshua,  are  nevertheless  in  all  essential  matters  pre- 
supposed (4).  The  main  question  is  :  Does  the  Booh  of  Judges  Tcnow  of  a  central 
sanctuary  as  the  only  authorized  place  of  sacrifice?  or  did  several  sanctuaries  of 
Jehovah  exist  contemporaneously  in  the  times  of  the  judges  ?  at  least,  was  such 
worship  carried  on  at  different  holy  places  at  the  same  time?  (5).  The  actual 
state  of  affairs  was  as  follows  : — Even  during  their  wanderings  in  the  wilderness, 
and  under  the  eye  of  the  lawgiver,  the  people  could  not  be  brought,  as  is  evident 
from  Lev.  xvii.  5,  Deut.  xii.  8,  to  renounce  the  custom  of  sacrificing  in  any  place 
they  might  choose.  How  much  less,  then,  would  this  be  accomplished  at  a  time 
when  there  was  no  individual  of  pre-eminent  influence  to  enforce  the  claims  of  the 
law  ;  and  when  the  scattered  people,  dwelling  among  the  Canaanites,  and  enter- 
ing into  religious  intercourse  with  them,  mingled  their  heathen  customs  with  the 
worship  of  Jehovah,  nay,  even  addicted  themselves  in  a  great  degree  to  the  adora- 
tion of  the  old  gods  of  the  land  !  Were  we  hence  to  infer  that  the  law  concern- 
ing unity  of  worship  was  not  then  in  existence,  we  should  be  equally  obliged  to 
affirm  this  of  the  whole  period  down  to  the  captivity  (6),  since,  notwithstanding 
the  severe  measures  of  several  kings,  the  high  places  for  worship  could  never  be 
wholly  abolished.  The  establishment  of  the  idolatrous  sanctuary  of  Micah  is 
explained,  Judg.  xvii.  6,  by  the  fact  that  "  every  man  did  that  which  was  right  in 
his  own  eyes,"  while  the  condemnation  of  Gideon's  schismatical  worship  (of 
which  hereafter,  §  159),  viii.  27,  can  only  be  understood  by  assuming  the  exclusive 
legality  of  the  one  national  sanctuary.  With  respect,  however,  to  the  sacrifices 
mentioned  ch.  vi.  18,  xiii.  16,  these  were  justified  by  the  theophany  which  preceded 
them,  and  were  in  accordance  with  patriarchal  usage  (comp.  §  114).  In  neither 
case  is  the  institution  of  a])ermanent  sacrificial  service  in  question.  This  does  not, 
however,  apply  to  the  time  of  Samuel,  of  which  hereafter  (§  160).  Tlie  national 
sanctuary,  the  tabernacle,  was  during  the  times  of  the  judges  permanently  located 
at  Shiloh,  Josh,  xviii.  1,  xix.  51  ;  Judg.  xviii.  31  ;  1  Sam.  i.  sq.  ;  comp.  with  Ps. 
Ixxviii.  60  ;  Jer.  vii.  13.  It  was  there  that  the  annual  festivals  were  Folemnized, 
Judg.  xxi.  19,  1  Sam,  i.  3  sq.  ;  and  there  that  the  regular  sacrificial  worship  was 
offered,  ii.  12  sq.  A  second  legitimate  tabernacle  in  some  other  locality  is  not 
once  spoken  of.  The  sanctuary  under  the  oak  at  Shechem,  mentioned  Josh.  xxiv. 
26,  probably  refers  to  the  altar  built  there  by  Abraham,  Gen.  xii.  6  sq.  (7)  ;  a 
holy  place  there  is  also  spoken  of.  Gen.  xxxv.  4.  Nothing  is  said,  however,  of 
sacrificial  worship  being  there  offered.  In  military  engagements,  the  ark  of  the 
covenant  used  (even  down  to  the  building  of  the  temple,  2  Sam.  xi.  11,  comp.  xv. 
24)  to  be  brought  to  the  central  point  of  the  battle,  and  sacrifices  were  there 
offered  before  it.  So,  in  the  contest  against  Benjamin,  when  it  is  said  that  all 
the  people  flocked  to  Bethel,  Judg.  xx.  26,  it  is  evident  from  ver.  27  that  the  ark 
was  there  ;  there  was,  however,  no  permanent  sanctuary,  the  altar  being,  as  is 
shown  by  xxi.  4,  erected  only  for  a  temporary  purpose  (8).  The  whole  narrative, 
1  Sam.  iv. ,  according  to  which  the  carrying  away  of  the  ark  was  regarded  as  a 
terrible  calamity,  is  deprived  of  all  meaning  unless  the  existence  of  but  a  single 
ark  is  assumed  (9). — The  fact  that  the  Books  of  Judges  and  Samuel  take  but  liWle 
notice  of  the  individual  sacrificial  laws  in  the  Pentateuch,  is  easily  accounted  for 
by  the  nature  of  their  contents.     The  only  remarkable  circumstance  is,  that  though 


§  158.]  DECLINE    OF   THE   THEOCRATIC    INSTITUTIONS.  357 

we  frequently  meet  with  the  burnt -offering  and  the  peace-offering,  a  sin-offering 
is  never  mentioned,  not  even  in  2  Sam.  xxiv.  25, — a  phenomenon  which  indeed 
occurs  also  in  the  Book  of  Joshua.  It  seems  that  a  special  use  of  Tlh};  prevails 
here  ;  and  that  this  expression,  as  is  evidently  the  case  in  Ezra  viii.  35,  comprises, 
in  contradistinction  to  n3J.,  the  sin-offering  also  (see  Hengstenberg,  Genuineness 
of  the  Pentateuch,  ii.  p.  71  sq.)  The  peace-offering  of  the  Pentateuch  is  pre- 
supposed in  1  Sam.  ii.  13-17  (10).  It  has  also  been  claimed  that  the  Booh  of  Judges 
hnoiDs  nothing  of  the  calling  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  as  appointed  in  the  Pentateuch. 
[Comp.  §  92,  note  2  ;  93,  note  6.]  On  the  contrary,  we  regard  it  as  a  prominent 
and  remarkable  fact,  that  the  Levites  appear  in  the  Book  of  Judges  in  exactly 
that  position  which  Deuteronomy  assumes,  when  it  always  classes  them  with  the 
strangers  on  account  of  their  poverty.  The  case  seems  to  have  been  as  follows  : 
All  the  Canaanites  not  being  driven  out  when  the  land  was  conquered,  the  cities 
appointed  for  the  Levites  did  not  come  into  the  undisturbed  possession  of  the 
Israelites,  e.g.  Gezer,  Josh.  xxi.  21,  comp.  with  xvi,  10  ;  Ajalon,  Josh.  xxi.  24, 
comp.  with  Judg.  i.  35,  Hence  it  would  be  quite  natural  for  many  of  the 
Levites  to  seek  an  asylum  in  cities  not  included  in  the  list  of  those  allotted  to 
them.  Thus,  in  Judg.  xvii.  7  sq.,  a  Levite  is  spoken  of  as  sojourning  as  a 
"stranger"  (lil)  in  Bethlehem,  and  departing  thence  to  Mount  Ephraim  ;  and  in 
xix.  1,  a  Levite  is  also  said  to  be  dwelling  as  a  "stranger"  on  the  northern  side  of 
Mount  Ephraim  (11).  It  is  not  difficult  to  show  why  there  were  as  yet  no  organ- 
ized Levitical  services.  The  services  appointed  to.  the  Levites  in  the  Pentateuch 
ceased  with  the  wanderings  of  the  tabernacle,  and  nothing  was  enacted  in  the 
law  with  respect  to  their  further  employment  ;  while  the  period  of  the  disintegrsi- 
tion  of  the  theocracy  was  one  utterly  unada])ted  for  the  production  of  new  ordi- 
nances of  worship.  Still  the  expression  used  xix.  18  by  the  Levite,  niH'  n'3"r*t 
"^/h  'Jit,  which  is  to  be  understood,  "  I  walk  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,"  refers  to  a 
connection  of  this  Levite  with  the  sanctuary  (12).  The  narrative  ch.  xvii.  sq. 
also  shows  that  the  fact  that  this  tribe  was  appointed  to  the  service  of  the  sanc- 
tuary was  well  known.  According  to  xvii.  13,  Micah  congratulates  himself  on 
obtaining  a  Levite  as  priest  to  his  image-worship.  This  priest,  who  was  subse- 
quently engaged  for  the  sanctuary  set  ujj  in  Dan,  was,  according  to  xviii.  30, 
Jonathan,  a  descendant  of  Moses  (13).  The  position  occupied  by  the  Levites  after 
the  times  of  David  would  be  quite  inexplicable,  if  the  law  had  not  previously 
separated  this  tribe  to  the  service  of  the  sanctuary. 

With  respect  to' the  history  of  the  priestliood,  there  is  in  this  case  also  a  great  gap 
in  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  Aaron,  the  choice  of  whom  is  also 
mentioned  1  Sam.  ii.  27  sq.,  was,  after  his  death,  succeeded  by  his  two  surviving 
sons  Eleazar  and  Ithamar,  the  former  filling  the  high-priestly  office,  Num.  xx. 
28,  Deut.  X.  6,  Josh.  xiv.  1,  and  being  succeeded  therein  by  his  son  Phinehas  ; 
comp.  Judg.  XX.  28.  The  history  of  the  high-priesthood  is  not  again  taken  up 
till  Eli,  1  Sam.  i.  sq.,  who  was,  according  to  tradition  (Josephus,  Antiq.  v.  11. 
5),  with  which  the  further  course  of  Old  Testament  history  coincides,  of  the  line 
of  Ithamar.  The  reason  for  the  transmission  of  the  high-priestly  dignity  to  this 
line  is  unknown.  On  the  high  priests  between  Ithamar  and  Eli,  see  Josephus  ; 
and  on  the  genealogy  of  Eleazar,  1  Chrou.  v.  29  sq.,  vi.  35  sq.  ;  Ezra  vii.  1 
sq.  (14). 


358  THE  BEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  THEOCRACY.         [§  158. 

(1)  Great  stress  has  always  been  laid  upon  this  point  by  the  opponents  of  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateucli.  [So  De  Wette  and  Vatke,and  most  recently  e.g. 
Wellhausen,  who  maintains  that  ''the  course  of  Israelitish  history  proceeds  stead- 
ily upward  toward  the  establishment  of  the  kingly  authority,  instead  of  downward 
from  the  splendid  age  of  Moses  and  Joshua"  (i.  p.  245).  Similarly  Reuss,  §  94 
sqq.,  regards  the  time  of  the  Judges  as  the  age  of  "  club-law,  delighting  in  fighting 
and  plundering,  such  as  usually  precedes  the  formation  of  proper  states."  Still 
he  recognizes  Moses  as  an  historical  person  of  high  importance,  and  admits  that 
"his  spirit  was  stamped  upon  the  national  development  and  gave  it  direction." 
He  attributes  to  him  the  "  original  thought,  which,  closely  uniting  faith  and 
nationality  for  mutual  security  aud  defence,  grounds  genuine  freedom  upon  right 
obedience,  by  the  institution  of  an  absolute  theocracy."  The  principle  and 
ordinance  of  divine  worship  also,  as  it  afterward  existed  in  Israel,  he  ascribes,  at 
least  in  its  fundamental  features,  to  Moses.  The  view  presented  in  this  section 
is  more  nearly  approached  by  F.  W.  Schultz  (in  Zockler's  Ilatidbuch,  i.  p.  270 
sq.),  and  more  decidedly  by  Riehm  (art.  "Richter, "  in  his  Handworterhuch)  ;  on 
this  point,  however,  consult  especially  Kohler,  vol.  ii.] 

(2)  This  has  been  especially  maintained  by  De  "Wette  and  Vatke.  To  draw 
such  inferences  from  a  book  which,  like  that  of  Judges,  includes  a  period  of  300 
years  in  twenty-one  chapters,  is  d  priori  a  very  doubtful  proceeding.  In  the 
Old  Testament  theology  the  points  chiefly  discussed  must  be  those  relating  to 
worship. 

(3)  Judg.  V.  4  sq.  :  "Lord,  when  Thou  w^entest  out  of  Seir,  when  Thou 
marchedst  out  of  the  field  of  Edom,  the  earth  trembled,  and  the  heavens  dropped, 
the  clouds  also  dropped  water.  The  mountains  melted  from  before  the  Lord, 
that  Sinai  before  the  Lord  God  of  Israel."  Then  follows  a  description  of  recent 
times  :  "  In  the  days  of  Shamgar  the  son  of  Anath,  in  the  days  of  Jael,  the  high- 
ways were  unoccupied,  and  the  walkers  in  paths  walked  through  byways.  There 
lacked  leading  in  Israel,  there  lacked,  till  I  Deborah  arose,  till  I  arose  a  mother 
in  Israel.  They  chose  new  gods  ;  then  was  war  in  the  gates.  Was  there  a  shield 
or  sj^ear  seen  among  forty  thousand  in  Israel?" 

(4)  On  what  follows,  comp.  especially  Hengstenberg,  Genuineness  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch, ii.  p.  1  sqq. ;  Kohler  ii.  p.  5  sqq. 

(5)  Vatke,  Religion  des  A.  T.  p.  264,  brings  forward  seven  such  holy  places. 
[Comp.  in  Wellhausen  the  section  upon  the  place  of  worship,  i.  17  sqq.;  Oehler, 
§  114,  note  3-5  ;  Green,  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  pp.  159-168.] 

(6)  [The  Graf  school  actually  maintain  that  the  unity  of  worship  was  not  pre- 
scribed as  a  law  till  the  time  of  Josiah  at  the  earliest.] 

(7)  Unless,  which  would  be  the  single  exception,  the  tabernacle,  which  indeed 
was  to  continue  a  wandering  sanctuary  (comp.  2  Sam.  vii.  6),  was  transported 
for  a  time  from  Shiloh  to  the  neighbormg  Shechcm. 

(8)  That  sacrifices  should  be  offered  wherever  the  ark  was,  is  quite  natural 
when  its  significance  is  considered.  On  similar  grounds,  the  act  of  sacrifice 
related  1  Sam.  vi.  15  is  not  surprising.  When  it  is  there  said  that  "the  men  of 
Beth-sliemesh  brought  burnt-oiferings, "  the  expression  does  not  exclude  the  co- 
operation of  the  priests.  Beth-shemesh  was,  moveover,  one  of  the  cities  of  the 
priests. 

(9)  Those  who,  for  the  sake  of  the  theory  that  there  were  several  sanctuaries, 
embrace  also  the  notion  of  several  arks,  have  the  usage  of  the  language,  which 
constantly  speaks  of  the  (definite)  ark,  against  them. 

(10)  Of  this  there  is  no  doubt.  The  fat  is  designated  as  the  part  belonging  to 
Jehovah  ;  and  it  is  brought  forward  as  the  special  transgressions  of  the  sons  of 
Eli,  that  they  demanded  their  portion  before  the  fat  was  burned  to  the  Lord,  etc. 
(see  Hengstenberg's  Oenvineness,  etc. ;  Kohler,  ii.  p.  14,  note  2.) 

(11)  Others,  as  is  assumed  Deut.  xviii.  6-8,  might,  after  selling  their  property, 
settle  at  the  place  of  the  sanctuary,  and  they  were  then  entitled  to  like  mainte- 
nance with  the  ministering  Levites.  How  such  maintenance  was  to  be  supplied, 
wc  »TQ  not  told,— probably  from  the  free-will  offerings.     (Article  Levi,  Levites.) 


§  159.]  UHLtGIOUS   SYNCRETISM    OF   THIS    PRRtOD.  359 

(12)  Judg.  xix.  18  cannot  mean,  "I  am  going  to  tlu;  liou.so  of  the  Lord,"  for 
i^K  never  occurs  with  the  accusative  of  direction. 

(13)  The  reading  H^^Jp  witli  Nun  siispei/st/in  is  confessedly  a  hiter  alteration  for 
n^'D.  In  the  case,  too,  of  Samuel,  his  employment  in  the  service  of  the  sanctuary 
(1  Sam.  ii.  18)  coincides  with  his  Levitical  descent. 

(14)  In  these  genealogies  it  is  not  said  which  of  the  descendants  of  Eleazar 
therein  enumerated  tilled  the  office  of  high  priest,  and  which  did  not.  Compare 
my  article  "  Hohepriester"  in  Herzog's  Real-EncyMop, 


§159. 

Continuation :  Religious  Syncretism  of  this  Period. 

The  commixture  icith  other  religions,  the  foundations  of  which  were  (as  beiore 
remarked,  §  26)  already  laid  during  the  sojourn  of  the  Israelites  in  Egypt,  was 
manifested  in  a  twofold  manner  during  the  age  of  the  judges.  First,  by  a  blend- 
ing of  the  worship  of  Jehovah  with  heathenism,  on  the  part  of  those  Israelites 
who  had  fallen  into  Canaanitish  idolatry.  Thus  in  the  worship  of  Baal  or  El- 
lerith,  to  whom  a  temple  was  dedicated  at  Shechem,  Judg.  viii.  33,  ix.  4,  46,  the 
idea  of  the  covenant  God  was  transferred  to  Baal.  Secondly,  by  the  fact  that, 
even  among  those  who  adhered  to  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  the  religious  con- 
sciousness was  more  or  less  obscured  by  heathen  ideas.  Hence  the  image-worship 
of  Micah  and  the  Daiiites.  To  this  a  widely  accepted  theory  would  add  the 
conduct  of  Gideon,  who,  after  having  destroyed  the  worship  of  Baal  at  Ophrah, 
vi.  12  sq.  (1),  and  delivered  Israel  from  the  oppression  of  the  Midianites,  and  re- 
fased  in  a  truly  theocratic  spirit  the  hereditary  sovereignty  offered  him  (viii.  23), 
is  said  himself  to  have  set  up  (viii.  24)  an  idolatrous  image-worship.  But  by  the 
ephod  which  he  caused  to  be  made,  we  are  not  to  understand  an  image  of 
Jehovah,  the  word  not  being  generally  used  in  the  sense  of  image.  It  is  evident 
from  xvii.  5,  xviii.  14,  17,  that  the  ephod  is  distinguished  from  teraphim,  graven 
image,  and  molten  image,  and  signifies  simply  the  garment  of  the  high  priest  (2). 
It  is  true  that  the  large  quantity  of  gold  collected  by  Gideon  was  not  required 
for  the  garment  with  the  breast-plate  (comp.  also  Ex.  xxviii.  6  sq.,  xxxix.  2  sq.), 
but  neither  are  we  told  that  it  was  all  used  (comp.  the  construction  of  HE^;;,  Hos. 
ii.  10)  (3).  In  fact,  it  is  not  said  that  Gideon  set  up  an  idol  at  all,  but  that,  by 
renouncing  the  legally  ordained  priesthood,  he  instituted  a  schismatical  worship. 
His  preparation  of  an  ephod  was  designed  to  furnish  a  means  of  interrogating  the 
Divine  will  by  Urim  and  Thummim  ;  and  his  motive  for  separating  from  the 
legitimate  sanctuary  may  perhaps  be  found  in  the  fact  of  its  being  situated  in 
the  midst  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim,  which  was  hostile  to  him.  The  censure 
expressed  by  the  narrator  is  shown  to  be  fully  justified  by  the  results  which 
ensued  after  Gideon's  death,  see  viii.  33,  wiien  this  schismatical  worship  facil- 
itated the  relapse  of  the  people  to  the  worship  of  Baal,  who  was  syncretistically 
worshipped  as  Baal-berith  (4). 

Finally,  the  narrative  concerning  Jephthah,  xi.  28-40,  belongs  here.  When  he 
went  out  against  the  Ammonites,  he  vowed,  if  he  should  return  victorious,  to 
offer  as  a  burnt-offering  to  Jehovah  whatever  should  come  forth  to  meet  him 
from  the  doors  of  his  house,  and  when  this  proved  to  be  his  own  daughter,  wh<7 


360  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  THEOCRACY.         [§  159. 

was  also  his  only  child,  he  did  not  dare  to  break  liis  vow,  but  performed  it  in 
respect  to  her.  The  opinion  which  prevailed  in  Jewish  antiquity  (see  Josephus 
and  the  Targums)  and  among  the  Fathers  of  the  Church,  and  which  was  also 
embraced  by  Luther,  is  that  Jephthah  really  slew  his  daughter,  and  offered  her 
as  a  burnt-offering  upon  the  altar.  The  view  that  Jephthah  only  consecrated  his 
daughter  to  the  service  of  the  sanctuary  in  a  state  of  life-long  virginity,  was  first 
urged  by  certain  medieval  Rabbins,  and  has  since  been  maintained  by  Hengsten- 
berg,  who  led  the  way  (Geiiuineness,  ii.  p.  105  sqq.),  and  by  several  recent  commen- 
tators (Cassel,  Gerlach,  Keil),  who  refer  to  Ex.  xxxviii.  8  and  1  Sam.  ii.  22,  where 
women  are  mentioned  as  serving  in  the  sanctuary.  Their  obligation  to  celibacy 
however  cannot  be  proved.  According  to  this  view,  the  fulfilment  of  the  vow 
would  lie  in  the  words  in  Judg.  xi.  39,  which  must  not  be  taken  as  pluperfect  ("  and 
she  had  known  no  man"),  but  as  an  account  of  what  now  took  place  :  "  and  she 
knew  no  man."  It  may  be  granted  that  there  are  some  things  in  the  narrative 
favorable  to  this  view,  especially  the  consideration  that,  when  Jephthah  placed 
at  God's  disposal  whatever  should  first  come  forth  from  his  house  to  meet  him, 
he  must  have  contemplated  the  possibility  of  its  being  a  human  being,  in  which 
case  it  was  impossible  that  he  would  have  intended  a  human  sacrifice  ;  and  the 
more  so,  since  no  such  sacrifice  is  mentioned  in  the  time  of  the  Judges,  even 
among  those  Israelites  who  apostatized  to  Canaanitish  idolatry.  It  may  be 
further  conceded  that  the  grief  of  the  father  is  also  accounted  for  by  the  view  in 
question,  all  prospect  of  posterity  being  cut  off  by  the  devotion  of  this  his  only 
child  to  celibacy.  Still  this  interpretation  is  at  variance  with  the  plain  meaning 
of  the  words,  "  he  did  unto  her  according  to  his  oath,"  which  in  their  reference 
to  ver.  31  cannot  relate  to  a  merely  spiritual  sacrifice.  It  cannot,  however,  be 
inferred  from  the  narrative  that  human  sacrifices  were  at  this  time  legal  in  the 
worship  of  Jehovah,  the  matter  being  evidently  represented  as  a  horrible  ex- 
ception. The  history,  indeed,  shows  that  in  those  days,  when  the  worship  of 
Baal  and  Moloch  was  still  contending  for  the  mastery  with  that  service  of  Je- 
hovah, which  was  not  as  yet  firmly  established  in  the  minds  of  men,  the  fear  of 
the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  the  avenger  of  broken  vows,  might,  even  in  the  heart  of  a 
servant  of  the  Lord,  be  perverted  to  the  shedding  of  human  blood  for  the  sake  of 
keeping  a  rashly  uttered  vow  (5).  The  narrative  of  the  Benjamite  war  and  the 
slaughter  of  the  inhabitants  of  Jabesh  (xxi.  5-10)  also  show  to  what  an  extent 
theocratic  zeal  held  the  sanguinary  fulfilment  of  an  oath  allowable. 

(1)  Hence  the  name  of  honor,  Jerubbaal,  LXX  'lepopaal,  by  which  he  is  also 
mentioned  1  Sam.  xii.  11,  and  which  is  exchanged,  2  Sam.  xi.  21,  for  Jerubbe- 
sheth,  r\K/3  =  7\^'2  (shame),  a  contemptuous  name  of  the  idol,  was  bestowed  upon 
Gideon.  The  word,  according  to  Judg.  vi.  32,  can  in  the  first  instance  be  no 
otlierwise  interpreted  than  as,  "  Let  Baal  contend,"  i.e.  against  him.  For  further 
discussion  on  this  name,  seethe  article  "  Gideon"  in  H.erzog''s Beal-Ei^cyMop.  v.  p. 
151  ;  comp.  also  Hengstenberg,  Genuineness,  i.  p.  237  sq.  ;  Movers,  Phd)iicier,i.  p. 
128  sqq. 

(2)  See  Hengstenberg,  Oenuineness,  ii.  p.  80,  and  Bertheau's  Commentary  on  the 
Bool:  of  Judges,  p.  133.  The  latter  is  arbitrary,  however,  in  making  Gideon  setup 
the  image  of  a  calf,  as  was  subsequently  done  by  Jeroboam.  For  why  may  not 
Gideon  have  worshipped  Jehovah,  by  means  of  the  altar  mentioned  Judg.  vi.  24, 
which  symbolized  the  presence  of  Jehovah,  and  was  still  standing  in  the  days  of 
the  narrator,  without  an  image  ? 


§  160.]  THE    PHILISTINE    01'1'KESSiON,    ETC.  361 

(3)  We  are  not  told  whether  the  sacred  garment  was  worn  by  Gideon  as  a  priest, 
or  set  up  as  an  object  of  worship.     The  former  seems  probable. 

(4)  Gideon's  sin  was  visited  upon  his  house,  when  his  sons  were  afterward 
slain  by  their  half-brother  Abimelech  at  tlie  place  of  his  illegal  worship.  Tl;e 
tragical  fate  of  Gideon's  family  is  related  Judg.  ix. 

(5)  The  case  of  the  Gibeonites  (Jorh.  ix.),  when  the  people  did  not  venture  to 
break  an  oath,  even  though  it  was  contrary  to  a  Divine  command,  may  be  men- 
tioned in  illustration. 


II.— RESTORATION      OF      THE      THEOCRATIC      UNITY     BY     SAMUEL. 
GROWTH  OF  PROPHETISM.     FOUNDATION   OF  THE  MONARCHY. 

§160. 

The  Philistine  Oppression.    Changes  effected  hy  Samuel. 

The  appearance  of  Samuel,  and  the  growth  of  Prophetism  by  his  means,  form 
the  turning-point  of  the  period  of  the  Judges.  The  new  state  of  affairs  had  been  pre- 
pared/or, partly  by  the  Philistine  oppression,  which  was  both  a  longer  and  a  heavier 
judgment  than  any  with  which  the  people  had  yet  been  visited,  and  partly  by  the 
judgeship  of  Eli.  For  since  the  judgeship  depended  in  his  case  not  upon  a  success- 
fully conducted  war  or  on  any  other  act  of  heroism,  but  upon  the  high-priestly 
office,  the  sanctuary  could  not  fail  to  acquire  fresh  importance,  and  consequently 
the  theocratic  union  fresh  power  with  the  people.  Their  first  attempt,  however,  to 
break  the  Philistine  yoke  by  a  united  effort,  ended  in  a  fearful  overthrow,  in  which 
even  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  which  had  so  often  led  them  to  victory,  fell  into  the 
hands  of  the  enemy,  1  Sam.  iv.  The  oppression  of  the  Philistines  then  became 
still  more  grievous,  for  it  is  evident,  from  xiii.  19-22,  that  they  disarmed  the 
entire  nation.  The  fact  that  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  the  medium  of  Jehovah's 
help  and  presence,  had  fallen  into  the  hands  of  the  heathen,  could  not  fail  to 
exercise  an  important  influence  upon  the  religious  life  of  the  people.  The  ark, 
after  being  restored  by  the  Philistines,  was  for  a  long  time  laid  aside  :  "It  was 
not  inquired  after,"  1  Chron.  xiii.  3  (comp.  Ps.  cxxxii.  6)  ;  it  continued  an  ob- 
ject of  fear,  but  not  of  worship  (1).  The  tabernacle  was  transferred  from  Shiloh, 
as  a  place  now  rejected  of  God,  to  Noh  in  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  ;  but,  having  lost 
with  the  ark  its  essential  significance  as  the  place  of  God's  habitation,  it  ceased 
to  be  the  religious  centre  of  the  nation,  though,  as  we  may  infer  from  1  Sam.  xxi. 
and  xxii.  17  sqq.,  the  Levitical  services  were  carried  on  in  it  without  interruption. 
The  person  of  Samuel,  moved  as  he  was  by  the  prophetic  spirit,  was  now  the  centre 
of  the  nation's  life.  The  sanctuary  being  rejected,  and  the  agency  of  the  high- 
priesthood  suspended,  the  mediatorship  between  God  and  His  people  rested  with 
the  prophet,  who,  though  not  of  the  priestly  race,  but  by  descent  a  Levite  of  the 
region  of  Ephraim  (2),  now  performed  sacrificial  services  in  the  presence  of  the 
people  (1  Sam.  vii.  9  sqq.).  The  central  sanctuary  no  longer  existing,  we  now  also 
find  various  places  of  sacrifice,  as  the  high  places  at  Ramah,  1  Sam.  ix.  13,  Bethel 
and  Gilgal,  x.  3  sq.,  comp.  xi.  15,  xv.  21.  Thus  were  the  bounds  imposed  by  the 
Mosaic  ritual  for  the  first  time  broken  through.     Israel  attained  to  the  experience 


362  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  THEOCRACY.         [§  101. 

that  tlie  i)resence  of  God  is  not  confined  to  an  appointed  and  material  symbol,  but 
that  wherever  He  is  sincerely  invoked,  He  bestows  His  abundant  blessing.  The  day 
of  penitence  and  prayer  for  which  Samuel  assembled  the  people  at  Mizpah,  in  the 
tribe  of  Benjamin,  after  he  had  put  down  idolatry,  became,  by  the  help  of 
Jehovah,  who  acknowledged  the  prayer  of  His  prophet,  a  day  of  victory  over 
their  enemies,  and  the  beginning  of  their  deliverance  (ch.  vii.).  Samuel  was 
henceforth  judge  of  the  whole  nation  ;  and  the  prophetic  office  began  from  this 
time  to  develop  its  agency,  on  which  account  the  history  of  Prophetism,  properly 
speaking,  dates  from  Samuel  (Acts  lii.  24). 

(1)  1  Sam.  xiv.  18,  wliere,  moreover,  the  LXX  assume  a  different  reading,  treats 
of  an  exception,  which  is  alluded  to  as  such. 

(2)  Samuel  was,  according  to  1  Chron.  vi.  13,  18,  of  the  house  of  Kohath. 
His  father  is  called  '■O')?**,  in  the  same  sense  as  the  Levite  in  Judg.  xvii.  7  is  said 
to  be  of  the  family  of  Judah.  The  frequent  occurrence  of  the  name  of  Samuel's 
father  Elkanah  among  the  Levitical  proper  names,  especially  among  the  Korali- 
ites,  Ex.  vi.  24,  1  Chron.  vi.  7  sq.,  xii.  G,  9,  xv.  23,  is  remarkable  (see  Hengsten- 
berg,  Oenuineness  of  the  Pentateuch,  ii.  p.  50  f.  This  name,  like  its  kindred  one 
Mikneiah,  1  Chron.  xv.  18,  21,  points  to  the  office  of  the  Levites.  The  fact 
that  Samuel  was  devoted  to  the  service  of  the  sanctuary  by  a  special  vow,  proves 
nothing  against  his  Levitical  descent  [although  this  is  maintained  by  Reuss  (§  116)], 
because  without  this  vow  such  service  was  not  binding  on  him  till  he  should  be 
twenty-five  years  of  age  ;  and  even  Levites  were  not  obliged  to  remain  constantly 
at  the  sanctuary  (art.  "Levi,  Leviten  ").  [Comp.  Riehm's  art.  "  Elkana,"  in  his 
Handworterbuch,  and  Kohler,  ii.  p.  95.] 

§  161. 

Nature^  Importance,  and  first  Beginnings  of  the  Prophetic  Office  (1). 

The  position  occupied  by  the  prophetic  office  in  the  organism  of  the  theocracy 
has  already  been  generally  referred  to,  §  97  :  we  must  now  treat  more  particularly 
of  its  institution  and  duties,  in  which  respect  also  our  point  of  departure  must  be 
the  fundamental  passage  Deut.  xviii.  9-21.  The  character  of  the  prophetic,  dif- 
fered entirely  from  that  of  the  priestly  office.  It  was  not,  like  the  latter,  confined 
to  one  tribe  and  one  family,  nor,  generally  speaking,  to  an  external  institution, 
though  a  certain  external  succession  subsequently  took  place.  It  is  said,  ver.  15, 
"  the  Lord  will  raise  up  (CP',)  a  prophet," — an  expression  used  also  of  the  judges, 
Judg.  ii.  16,  18,  iii.  9,  15,  etc.,  and  denoting  the  freeness  of  the  Divine  vocation  ; 
and  again,  '■'■from  the  midst  of  thee,  of  thy  brethren"  (comp.  Deut.  xviii.  18), 
showing  that  the  call  to  the  office  of  prophet  was  to  know  no  other  restriction 
than  that  of  being  confined  to  the  covenant  people.  This  office,  however,  was 
not  to  be  severed  from  the  historical  connection  of  revelation,  but  to  begin  from 
Moses  and  to  continue  his  testimony  (vers.  15,  18).  The  prophet  was  to  prove  his 
Divine  mission,  not  so  much  by  signs  and  wonders — for  the  performance  of  which 
even  a  false  prophet  might  receive  power — as  by  his  confession  of  the  God  who 
redeemed  Israel  and  gave  them  the  law  (xiii.  2-6).  Again,  what  the  prophet 
spoke  was  to  come  to  pass  (^3')  ;  tliat  is,  the  prophetic  word  was  to  be  corroborated 
by  its  historical  fulfilment.  In  the  first  respect,  the  prophetic  office,  while  itself 
exercised  within  the  unalterable  ordinances  of  the  law,  was  designed  to  prevent  a 
mere  lifeless  transmission  of  legal  injroirtions,  by  proclaiming  to  the  people  the  de- 


§  IGl.]  FIRST    BEGIIS'XINGS    OF    THE    PROPHETIC    OFFICE,  oG3 

mands  of  the  Divine  will  in  a  manner  constantly  adapted  to  the  needs  of  the  age, 
and  in  all  the  life  and  vigor  of  a  message  ever  newly  coming  forth  from  God.  In 
the  second  respect,  it  was  to  cast  a  light  on  tlie  future  of  the  jieojjle,  and  to  disclose 
to  them  the  Divine  counsels,  whether  for  their  warning  or  comfort  (comp.  Amos 
iii.  7),  and  thus  to  initiate  them  in  the  ways  of  the  Divine  government.  In  this 
particular  also  it  might  be  regarded  as  continuing  the  testimony  of  the  law,  which 
not  only  revealed  God's  requirements  to  His  people,  but  alsoraanifested  the  law 
of  His  procedure  toward  them,  and  the  end  of  His  government.  Lev.  xxvi.,  Deut. 
xxviii.-xxx.,  xxxii.  (2).  God's  witness  to  Himself  among  heathen  nations  is  more 
H  matter  of  the  past,  a  subject  of  remembrance  ;  in  prophecy,  on  the  contrary,  a 
lasting  and  lively  intercourse  is  established  between  God  and  tlie  covenant  people, 
on  which  account  the  silence  of  prophecy  is  a  sign  that  the  Lord  has  withdrawn 
from  His  people,  and  therefore  a  sign  of  judgment  (comp.  Amos  viii.  12,  Lam.  ii. 
9,  Ps.  Ixxiv.  9).  But  the  progress  accomplished  by  revelation  in  prophecy  will 
not  be  fully  discerned,  till  the  prophetic  life  and  that  endowment  with  the  Spirit 
•which  constituted  a  prophet  are  taken  account  of,  as  well  as  the  prophetic  icord 
itself.  The  prophet  is  the  man  of  the  Spirit.  By  the  H'^ri'  X^^'^  is  the  Divine 
word  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  prophet,  hence  also  his  name  ^'"^}.  The  root 
*<3J  is  akin  to  J.'?J,  which  (comp.  also  31J,  1|3J)  signifies  to  spring  forth,  to  gush 
forth,  the  Hiphil  V."?*}  being  used  of  speech  flowing  forth  from  a  full  heart.  K'^J 
then  means,  not,  as  it  is  now  usually  explained,  that  which  is  spoken  (or  more  pre- 
cisely, gushed  forth)  by  the  Divine  Spirit,  but  (see  Ewald,  Ausf.  Lehrhtich,  §  149 
e,  2)  the  speaker — yet  not  in  an  active  sense,  but,  as  is  shown  by  the  passive  form, 
him  who  is  the  speaker  as  the  instrument  of  another,  viz.  God.  The  H'3J  is  the  in- 
terpreter (comp.  Ex.  vii.  1  :  "I  have  made  thee  a  god  to  Pharaoh,  and  Aaron  thy 
brother  shall  be  thy  ^^'^J,"  which  is  expressed  iv.  16  :  "  he  shall  be  to  thee  for  a 
mouth")  ;  hence  the  speech  of  the  prophet,  as  being  determined  by  the  spiritual 
power  which  fills  and  incites  him,  is  designated  by  the  passive  or  reflective  forms 
Niphal  and  Hithpael  *53J,  J<3:nn  (comp.  Ewald,  id.  §  124  a)  (3).  Among  those 
spiritual  gifts  by  which  Jehovah  fits  men  for  the  different  callings  which  the 
service  of  His  kingdom  requires  (comp.  §  65),  the  gift  of  prophecy  is  that  which 
institutes  a  direct  personal  intercpurse  between  God  and  man  ;  and  prophecy  thus 
becomes,  through  God's  self -witness  to  the  prophet,  the  type  of  the  teaching  of 
His  people  by  God  Himself  under  the  new  covenant,  Jer.  xxxi.  34,  John  vi.  45. 
The  operation  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  however,  upon  the  prophet,  was  not  merely 
intellectual,  but  one  which  renewed  the  whole  man.  The  prophet  became  another 
man,  1  Sam.  x.  6,  and  received  another  heart,  ver.  9.  Thus  prophecy  was  also 
an  anticipation  of  the  mivfi  ktIch^  of  the  new  covenant, — a  circumstance  which 
explains  the  saying  of  Moses,  Num.  xi.  29:  "Would  God  that  all  the  Lord's 
people  were  prophets,  and  that  the  Lord  w^ould  put  His  Spirit  upon  them  !"  (4). 
The  first  beginnings  of  prophecy  (5)  reach  back  to  the  times  before  Samuel  (comp. 
Jer.  vii.  25).  For  Moses,  though  standing  far  above  all  prophets  (Num.  xii.  6-8, 
comp.  §  66)  as  mediator  of  the  fundamental  revelation  and  administrator  of  the 
entire  Divine  economy,  as  well  as  by  reason  of  that  nearer  vision  of  God  vouch- 
safed to  him  as  a  special  privilege,  was  himself  a  prophet  (comp.  Deut.  xxxiv.  10, 
Hos.  xii.  14),  and  that  not  merely  in  the  broader  sense  in  which  the  word  ><'3J 


364  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  THEOCRACY.         [§  161. 

was  already  applied  to  the  patriarchs  (Gen.  xx.  7,  Ps.  cv.  15),  because  the  word 
of  God  came  to  and  proceeded  from  them,  but  in  its  proper  signification,  as  par- 
taking of  that  endowment  of  the  Spirit  which  constitutes  a  prophet  (Num.  xi.  25) 
(6).  Besides  Moses,  his  sister  Miriam  is  also  called,  Ex.  xv.  20,  HN';:^,  which 
must  not  be  explained  as  singer  (or  poet),  for  she  expressly  claims  (Num.  xii.  2) 
the  honor  that  the  Lord  had  spoken  by  her  (7).  In  the  earlier  times  of  the  judges, 
the  gift  of  prophecy  appeared  but  occasionally  ;  in  the  person  of  Deborah,  who 
is  called  (Judg.  iv.  4)  the  prophetess,  because  (vers.  6  and  14)  the  word  of  the 
Lord  came  by  her,  it  was  united  to  the  office  of  judge.  By  the  n'in;-':]X7D,  ii.  1, 
we  must  probably  understand  not  a  human  messenger,  but  the  angel  of  the  Lord. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  a  prophet  who  appears,  xi.  7,  during  the  Midianite  op- 
pression, to  remind  the  Israelites  of  their  deliverance  from  Egypt,  and  to  reprove 
them  for  their  idolatry.  In  like  manner  does  a  "man  of  God"  (1  Sam.  ii.  27) 
exercise  the  office  of  a  rebuker  of  the  high  priest  Eli  and  his  family,  entirely  in 
the  manner  of  the  later  prophets.  There  must  also,  as  may  be  inferred  from  ix.  9, 
have  been  from  time  to  time  seers  (H^'i,  as  they  were  usually  called,  instead  of 
X'^J),  with  whom  counsel  was  taken  in  private  affiairs,  but  of  whom  a  more  ex- 
tensive sphere  of  operation  cannot  be  assumed.  It  cannot  be  proved  from  Amos 
ii.  11  that  the  schools  of  the  prophets  existed  before  Samuel,  as  has  been  conject- 
ured, e.g.  by  Vatke  {Bellgion  des  alien  Testaments,  p.  285  sqq.)  ;  nor  from  the  fact 
that  Samuel  was  a  Nazarite  as  well  as  a  prophet  (8),  that  prophecy  being  thus 
combined  with  Nazaritism,  these  schools  of  the  prophets  existed  in  the  form  of 
ascetic  associations,  into  which  many  retired  during  those  troublous  times.  This 
absence  of  proof  is  increased  by  the  manner  in  which  the  period  preceding  Sam- 
uel is  characterized,  1  Sam.  iii.  1,  as  one  without  prophets,  by  the  words  :  "  The 
word  of  the  Lord  was  precious  in  those  days  ;  there  was  no  open  vision"  [i.e. 
no  revelation  spread  abroad,  or  common. — D.]. 

(1)  See  my  article  "  Prophetenthum  des  A.T."  in  Herzog's  Real-EncyMop.  xii. 
p.  211  sqq.  [Kleinert,  art.  "Prophet,"  in  Riehm  ;  Konig,  Der  Offenlarungsbegriff 
des  A.  T.  1883].  A  notice  of  the  literature  on  the  prophetic  office  in  general,  is 
given  in  Keil's  Introduction  to  the  Old  Test.  §  61. 

(2)  In  both  respects,  prophecy  is  one  of  the  highest  proofs  of  favor  which  God 
shows  to  His  people,  and  is  placed  on  a  level  (Amos  ii,  11,  Hos.  xii.  10  sq.)  with 
their  deliverance  from  Egypt  and  their  subsequent  leading  through  the  wil- 
derness. 

(3)  [The  etymology  of  the  word  is  held  to  be  different  by  Konig,  who  devotes 
to  it  (p.  71  sqq.)  a  thorough  discussion.  He  maintains  that  the  root  to  be 
appealed  to  is  not  V'^\  but  the  Arabic  nabaa,  signifying  "to  bring  forth  words, 
to  speak."  The  form  ^5'^J  he  regards  not  as  passive,  but  as  intransitive,  the  i 
having  been  lengthened  from  e,  as  e.g.  in  D'J.'J  ;  to  the  Niphal  and  Hithpael  S<3J 
and  ><3Jnn  he  gives  the  meaning  "  to  show  oneself  a  prophet."  The  view  given 
in  the  text  that  the  word  is  passive  and  represents  the  speaker  as  the  organ  of 
another,  Konig  justly  pronounces  untenable,  and  comes  to  the  result  that  the 
word,  derived  as  it  is  from  the  Arabic  root  mentioned,  can  only  be  active,  and 
means  therefore  a  speaker,  especially  a  speaker  in  a  superior  sense,  the  speaker 
of  God,  the  medium  of  divine  revelation.  As  Orelli  (Die  Attest.  Weissagung, 
1882)  puts  it,  in  his  excellent  note  (p.  7)  :  "  Of  the  active' signification  of  this 
word,  held  by  Delitzsch,  Hofmann,  Ewald,  Dillmann,  and  Sehulz,  there  can  be 
no  doubt,  and  the  only  question  is  whether  the  word  expresses  an  involuntary 
and  violent  utterance,  or  whether  it  simply  means  announcer,  speaker,  and  ia 


§  1G2.]  SCHOOLS    OF   THE    PROPHETS,  ETC.  365 

usage  is  further  employed  to  convey  the  idea  of  the  speaker  of  God  and  divine 
mysteries.  The  Arabic  nahna  favors  the  latter,  as  does  also  the  name  of  the 
Assyrian  god  Nebo  (the  speaker  or  revealer)  from  the  same  root."  "Whatever  may 
have  been  its  etymological  meaning,  its  meaning  in  Hebrew  usage  is  determin3d 
by  Ex.  vii.  1.  Comp.  Robertson  Smith,  The  Frofhets  of  Israel,  p.  389  sq.,  and 
R.  Payne  Smith,  Prophecy  a  Preparation  for  Christ,  pp.  48-56. — D.  ] 

(4)  It  is  for  this  very  reason  that  that  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  which  calls  into 
existence  the  future  church  of  the  redeemed,  in  which  all  are  directly  taught  of 
God  and  bear  His  law  within  them  as  a  sanctifying  vital  power  (Jer,  xxxi.  84),  is 
represented  as  a  universal  bestowal  of  the  gift  of  prophecy  (Joel  iii.  1).  These 
general  propositions  will  be  further  carried  out  in  the  subsequent  didactic  sec- 
tion (§  205  sqq.). 

(5)  [Comp.  on  this  point  and  against  the  attempt  of  Kuenen  to  give  to  prophecy 
a  Canaanitish  origin,  Konig,  p.  57  sqq.  ;  also  Reuss,  §  70,  ] 

(6)  If  the  history  of  the  Old  Testament  revelation,  advances  from  theophany 
to  inspiration  (comp.  §  55),  the  latter  as  well  as  the  former  is  already  found 
in  Moses. 

(7)  Joshua,  whom  the  son  of  Sirach,  xlvi.  1,  designates  as  dLa6oxo<:  Muvaf/  h  -nrpo- 
<j)r}Teiaig,  is  never  called  i^'^i. 

(8)  This  much  only  can  be  said,  that  Nazaritism  may  have  become  more 
widely  diffused  in  the  period  of  tlie  judges  by  the  examples  of  Samuel  and  Sam- 
son. The  commotions  of  the  times  may  have  the  more  powerfully  led  individ- 
uals, by  taking  upon  them  this  vow,  to  present  to  the  people  the  image  of  its 
sacred  and  priestly  destination.  The  expression,  Amos  ii.  11,  "I  raised  up,"  etc., 
as  well  as  what  is  said  ver.  13,  points  to  the  contrast  in  which  such  God-devoted 
persons  stood  to  the  mass  of  the  people. 

§  16^^. 
The  so-called  Schools  of  the  Prophets.     The  Prophetic  Office  of  Watchman. 

In  the  times  of  Samuel,  on  the  contrary,  a  greater  number  of  prophets  appear, 
in  consequence  of  the  powerful  spiritual  movement  by  which  the  nation  was 
affected.  These  gathered  around  Samuel,  and  formed  the  so-called  schools  of  the 
propliets.  These  institutions,  concerning  which  every  possible  theory  has  been 
held,  have  been  regarded  by  some  as  monastic  brotherhoods,  by  others  as  secret 
societies,  by  others — and  this  view,  expressed  in  their  ordinary  designation  as 
schools  of  the  prophets,  is  the  most  widely  spread — as  educational  establishments 
(i).  They  make  their  appearance  at  only  two  periods  of  Israelitish  history,  viz. 
in  the  days  of  Samuel,  and  in  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  in  the  times  of  Elijah 
and  Elisha.  The  purpose  of  these  schools  of  the  prophets,  and  appareii.  1y  their 
arrangements  being  very  different  under  Samuel  and  in  the  days  of  Elijah,  the 
two  accounts  must  be  considered  separately. 

We  first  meet  (1  Sam.  x.  5-12)  with  a  number  ( /?D,  properly  a  band)  of  prophets 
coming  with  instruments  of  music  from  the  high  place  (no3)  of  Gibeah  in  the 
tribe  of  Benjamin,  and  prophesying.  It  is  not  said  that  these  prophets  had  also 
a  dwelling  at  this  high  place  ;  they  seem  rather  to  have  been  journeying  to  the 
place  of  worship  found  there  (Thenius,  in  loc,  thinks  otherwise).  We  next  find, 
xix.  19  sqq.,  an  assemlily  (i^p"!?!?)  of  prophets  prophesying,  with  Samuel  at  their 
head,  at  Ramah  in  H'lJ  (Keri  j">''"3),  i.e.  dwellings,  which  expression  denotes  a  place 
of  residence  consisting  of  several  habitations,  and  consequently  a  college  of 
prophets.     There  is  no  reason  for  supposing   a  school  properly  so  called.     The 


366  THE    DEVELOPMENT    OF   THE   THEOCRACY.  [§  1G2. 

prophetic  gift  was  not  to  be  engendered  by  instruction  (it  was  not  the  product  of 
study  and  reflection,  but  the  immediate  effect  of  the  Divine  Spirit).  It  must  also 
be  noticed  that  prophets  (D'X'::^)  assembled  around  Samuel  are  here  spoken  of,  not. 
as  subsequently,  sons  of  the  prophets,  D'K'3J  "J3, — an  expression  denoting  disciples 
of  the  prophets  (comp.  §  174).  By  this  assembly  of  prophets,  then,  we  understand 
rather  an  association  of  prophets  drawn  together  by  the  leading  of  the  Spirit,  and 
among  whom  the  prophetic  gift  was  cherished  by  sacred  exercises  performed  in 
common.  This  view  of  the  matter  leads  us  to  infer  that  Samuel  aimed,  in  those 
days  when  the  sanctuary,  deprived  of  the  ark,  was  no  longer  the  central  point  of 
the  theocracy,  to  found  a  home  for  the  newly  kindled  religious  life  of  the  nation. 
The  extraordinary  manifestations  in  which  the  prophetic  inspiration  displayed 
itself,  and  the  overwhelming  and  irresistible  influence  it  exercised  on  all  who 
came  within  its  circle,  are  common  to  this  first  appearance  of  prophecy,  and  to 
the  early  vigor  of  kindred  spiritual  movements  (2).  There  is  not  a  hint  that  the 
association  of  proj^hets  at  Ramah  consisted  chiefly,  as  some  have  supposed,  of 
Levites,  no  privileges  of  birth  being  in  this  respect  of  any  avail, — a  circumstance 
alluded  to  x.  12  (3).  Nor  can  it  be  legitimately  inferred  that  the  cultivation  of 
vocal  and  instrumental  music  was  a  direct  end  of  this  union,  musicians  being  in 
fact  distinguished,  ver.  10,  from  prophets.  Music  was  designed,  on  the  one  hand, 
to  prepare  the  mind  for  the  apprehension  of  the  Divine  voice  (comp.  2  Kings 
iii.  15)  ;  on  the  other,  to  be  a  vehicle  for  the  utterance  of  the  prophetic  inspira- 
tion (4).  Tliat  sacred  literature  was  also  cherished  in  this  association  at  Ramah, 
may  be  regarded  as  certain,  for  prophetic  authorship  undoubtedly  begins  witk 
Samuel,- — at  first,  indeed,  in  the  form  of  theocratic  history  (5).  (For  lack  of 
further  information,  nothing  more  can  be  said  concerning  the  internal  arrange- 
ments of  the  schools  of  the  projihets,  or,  to  speak  more  correctly,  of  the 
association  of  the  prophets  in  Samuel's  time,  for  the  existence  of  any  other  college 
than  that  at  Ramah  cannot  be  proved.)  The  public  and  powerful  agency 
exercised  from  this  time  forward  by  those  who  filled  the  prophetic  office,  shows 
that  a  contemplative  life  passed  in  seclusion  from  the  world  was  out  of  the  ques- 
tion for  those  who  were  members  of  the  association  of  prophets.  This  agency, 
after  Samuel  had  founded  the  kingdom,  and  delivered  up  to  the  king  the  authority 
he  had  exercised  as  judge,  may  be  defined  as  that  of  %oatchmen  to  the  theocracy, 
whence  the  prophets  are  frequently  designated  D'ijy  or  D'DVp  (comp.  Mic,  vii.  4  ; 
Jer.  vi.  17  ;  Ezek.  iii.  17,  xxxiii.  7).  This  office  of  watchman,  moreover,  was  to 
be  exercised  both  toward  the  nation  in  general  and  the  holders  of  theocratic 
offices  in  particular,  especially  the  king,  whose  conduct  could  not  on  theocratic 
principles  be  inspected  and  controlled  by  the  representatives  of  the  people,  but 
only  by  the  immediate  agents  of  Jehovah.  To  try  the  ways  of  the  nation  and  its 
leaders  by  their  conformity  to  the  injunctions  of  the  Divine  covenant  (comp.  as 
the  principal  passage  Jer.  yi.  37) — to  insist  with  inexorable  severity  upon  the 
dignity  and  sole  sovereignty  of  Jehovah— to  testify  unreservedly  before  high  and 
low,  and  especially  before  the  theocratic  office-bearers,  against  every  declension 
from  Him  and  from  His  law — to  proclaim  the  Divine  judgments  against  the 
obdurately  disobedient,  and  to  be  in  some  circumstances  themselves  the  execii- 
tioners  thereof,  and  on  the  other  hand,  to  promise,  when  needful,  deliverance 
and  blessing,  such  were  the  duties  which  constituted  the  political  agency  of  the 


J5  162.]  SCHOOLS    OF   THE    PROPHETS,   ETC.  307 

prophets, — an  agency  which  must  be  classer],  neither  with  that  of  ministers  and 
councillors  of  state,  nor  with  that  of  popular  leaders  and  demagogues,  in  the 
fashion  in  which  it  has  often  been  attempted  to  draw  a  comparison  between 
them.  One  duty  pertaining  to  this  office  of  watchman  was  that  of  icriting  the 
theocratic  history,  whose  object  it  was  to  portray,  in  the  light  of  the  Divine  coun- 
sels and  of  the  inviolable  ordinance  of  Divine  retribution,  the  manner  in  which 
Israel  had  hitherto  been  led — to  pass  judgment  on  the  past  condition  of  the 
people,  and  especially  on  the  life  and  conduct  of  their  kings,  according  to  the 
standard  of  the  law — to  point  out  by  their  fate  the  reality  of  the  Divine  threats 
and  promises  ;  and  in  all  these  ways  to  hold  up,  for  the  warning  and  comfort  of 
future  generations,  the  mirror  of  the  history  of  their  forefathers  ;  the  so-calleA 
"  theocratic  pragmatism"  (6). 

(1)  Compare  on  this  subject  especially  Keil's  Commentary  on  the  Boohs  of  Samuel, 
1864,  §  146  sqq.  There  is  scarcely  any  subject  of  Old  Testament  history  and  the- 
ology which  could  formerly  boast  of  having  excited  so  large  a  share  of  interest 
and  investigation  as  the  so-called  schools  of  the  prophets.  The  less  that  was 
known  of  them,  the  more  might  be  made  of  them,  and  hence  every  one  saw  in 
them  what  he  wanted  to  see.  The  copious  literature  to  which  they  have  given 
rise  is  recorded  in  Kranichfeld,  De  iis,  quce  in  V.  T.  commcmorantvr,  2»'ophet</rfim 
societatihiis,  1861,  p.  3.  [On  the  various  views  in  regard  to  their  time  and  origin, 
comp.  the  art.  "  Projihetenthum  des  A.  T. "  in  Herzog.  Of  the  latest  investi- 
gations maybe  mentioned  that  of  Kiinig,  i.  p.  46  sqq.,  for  the  sake  of  the  distinc- 
tion which  he  draws  between  mediate  and  immediate  prophecy,  in  support  of 
which  he  brings  into  account  the  schools  of  the  prophets.] 

(2)  Similar  extraordinary  phenomena  are  recorded  also  of  the  oldest  Christian 
churches,  especially  that  in  Corinth  (comp.  1  Cor.  xiv.  24)  ;  the  Camisards  and 
other  phenomena  of  ecclesiastical  history  may  here  be  mentioned. 

(3)  In  the  very  variously  understood  passage,  1  Sam.  x.  12,  the  words  "  who  is 
their  father?"  can  hardly  be  taken  to  mean  "  who  is  their  president?"  which 
would  here  be  a  very  idle  inquiry.  They  are  rather  to  be  regard ed  as  a  retort  to 
the  astonished  inquiry  of  ver.  11,  "  wliat  is  come  to  the  son  of  Kish  ?"  which  they 
answer  by  the  question,  "  who  then  is  ilicir  father?"  i.e.  have  they  then  the  gift 
of  prophecy  in  virtue  of  a  privilege  of  birth? 

(4)  It  is,  however,  undoubtedly  ])robable  that  the  cultivation  of  sacred  music 
by  the  prophets  mainly  contributed  to  the  impulse  given  to  it  from  the  time  of 
David,  who  was  closely  connected  with  the  association  of  prophets  at  Ramah, 
and  even,  according  to  1  Sam.  xix.  18.  himself  sojourned  therefor  a  time.  There 
is  so  close  a  connection  between  sacred  song  and  prophecy,  that  the  former  is  it- 
self called  prophesying,  1  Chron.  xxv.  2  sq.  ;  and  the  chief  singers  appointed  by 
David  (xxv.  1,  5  ;  2  Chron    xxix.  30,  xxxv.  15)  are  called  projjhets  and  seers. 

(5)  Comp.  1  Chron.  xxix.  29,  and  what  Thenius,  on  1  Sam.  xix.  19,  xxii.  5,  re- 
marks on  the  traces  of  sketches  of  the  life  of  David  made  in  the  schools  of  the 
prophets.  The  foundations  of  that  great  historical  work  composed  during  suc- 
cessive centuries  by  the  prophets,  so  frequently  appealed  to  as  an  authority  in  the 
Books  of  Kings,  and,  though  re-compiled,  still  extant  in  tlie  time  of  the  Chroni- 
cler, may  have  been  already  laid.  With  respect  to  the  disputed  question- — wliicb 
cannot  in  this  place  be  further  discussed — as  to  the  relation  of  the  writings  quot- 
ed in  the  Booksof  Ciironicles  under  the  names  of  ])r()phets  (the  words  of  the  seer 
Samuel,  of  the  prophet  Nathan,  of  the  seer  Gad,  the  ])rophecy  of  Ahijali,  the 
visions  of  Iddo  the  seer,  the  words  of  the  prophet  Shemaiah,  the  writing  of 
Isaiah,  etc.)  to  the  above-mentioned  annals,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  former  must 
have  been  in  the  hands  of  the  Chronicler  not  as  separate  writings,  but  as  compo- 
nent parts  of  the  latter  great  work,  wiiich  is  expressly  stated  to  have  been  th« 
case  with  the  writings  of  the  prophets  Jehu  and    Isaiah,  2  Chron.  xx.  34,  xxxii. 


368  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  THEOCRACY.         [§  163. 

33.  The  theory  of  Movers  and  others,  however,  that  individual  portions  of  the 
Books  of  Kings  are  designated  in  Chronicles  by  the  names  of  prophets,  as  above 
cited,  only  because  narratives  concerning  the  prophets  in  question  occur  in  tliem, 
is  unnatural.  Rather  does  the  Chronicler,  as  he  unmistakably  says,  2  Chron. 
xxvi.  22,  with  respect  to  the  history  of  Uzziah  by  Isaiah,  regard  the  books  on 
which  his  own  work  is  founded  as  the  actual  compositions  of  prophets.  The  con- 
nection between  the  writing  of  history  and  the  prophetic  call  will  become  more 
evident  as  we  proceed, 

(6)  An  expression  quite  harmless  in  itself,  yet  capable  of  leading  to  a  total 
misconception,  if  the  view  of  history  imparted  to  the  prophets  in  virtue  of  that 
spiritual  vision  which  disclosed  to  them  the  connection  of  things,  is  represented 
as  the  result  of  a  talent  for  so  representing  events  as  to  accommodate  history  to 
subjective  tendencies. 

§163. 

The  Foundation  of  the  Israelitish  Kingdom.      Consecration  of  the  King  (1). 

We  have  already  glanced  at  the  duty  made  incumbent  on  those  who  filled  the 
office  of  prophets,  by  the  founding  of  the  Israelitish  Tcingdom.  This  took  place 
in  the  following  manner.  In  spite  of  the  mutual  jealousies  of  the  different  tribes, 
among  which  that  of  Ephraim  laid  special  claim  to  superiority  (comp.  Judg.  viii. 
1,  xii.  1),  the  troubles  experienced  during  the  times  of  the  judges  had  made  the 
people  conscious  of  their  need  of  a  national  union,  by  which  the  several  tribes 
might  be  bound  together.  The  royal  dignity,  with  hereditary  succession,  had 
already  been  offered  to  Gideon,  and  refused  by  him  on  theocratic  principles, 
Judg.  viii.  23  (2).  After  his  death,  a  kingdom  was  set  up  "over  Israel,"  ix. 
22,  in  Shechem,  by  his  illegitimate  son  Abimelech,  which,  however,  extended  to 
only  a  portion  of  the  nation,  and  lasted  but  three  years.  The  people  having  at 
last  experienced  under  Samuel  the  advantages  of  national  unity,  and  fearing  the 
dangers  still  threatening  them  from  east  and  west  (in  the  first  place  from  the 
Ammonites,  but  also,  comp.  ix.  16,  still  from  the  Philistines),  and  at  the  same 
time  apprehensive  of  the  tyranny  of  Samuel's  sons,  expressed  still  more  strongly 
their  desire  for  a  king,  on  whom  the  command  of  the  army  and  the  administra- 
tion of  justice  might  regularly  devolve, — a  king  "like  all  the  nations,"  viii.  5, 
20.  This  request,  in  the  sense  in  which  it  was  made  to  Samuel,  was  a  denial  of 
the  sovereignty  of  Jehovah,  a  renunciation  of  their  own  glory  as  the  theocratic 
people,  and  a  misconception  of  the  power  and  faithfulness  of  the  covenant  God, 
inasmuch  as  a  faulty  constitution,  and  not  their  own  departure  from  God  and 
His  law,  was  regarded  as  the  cause  of  the  misfortunes  they  had  hitherto  expe- 
rienced ;  while  their  hope  of  a  better  future  was  therefore  founded  upon  the  in- 
stitution of  an  earthly  government,  and  not  upon  the  return  of  the  people  to  their 
God.  Hence  the  Divine  answer,  viii.  7,  "  they  have  rejected  me  that  I  should 
not  reign  over  them."  On  the  other  hand,  however,  as  the  Divine  providence 
does  not  exclude  the  employment  of  human  agents  as  its  instruments,  so  neither 
was  an  earthly  kingdom  of  necessity  Of)posed  to  the  theocracy  ;  nay,  since  the 
people  had  shown  themselves  incapable  of  uniting  in  an  ideal  union,  the  king- 
ship might — if  the  king,  in  obedience  to  the  theocratic  principle,  were  regarded 
not  as  an  autocrat  but  as  the  organ  of  Jeliovah — even  become  the  means  of  con- 
firming the  theocracy.  It  was  on  this  principle  that  Samuel  acted,  after  having 
obtained  God's  permission  to  grant  the  desire  of  the  people.     To  make  it  evident 


§  163.]         FOUNDATION   OP  THE   ISRAELITISH    KINGDOM,  ETC.  369 

that  the  Divine  choice  was  entirely  independent  of  earthly  considerations,  it  was 
not  a  man  of  importance,  but  one  as  yet  unknown,  of  the  least  family  of  the  small- 
est of  the  tribes  (ix.  21),  who  was  raised  to  the  throne  (3).  The  consecration  to 
the  kingship  was  effected,  according  to  ancient  and  recognized  (Judg.  ix.  8,  15) 
usage,  by  aiiointing,  a  rite  performed  by  Samuel  on  Saul,  1  Sam.  x.  1,  and  subse- 
quently on  David,  xvi.  3,  and  repeated  in  the  case  of  the  latter  after  his  actual 
entrance  upon  the  government,  2  Sam.  ii.  4,  v.  3,  by  the  elders  of  the  people. 
The  royal  anointing  is  also  mentioned  in  the  cases  of  Absalom,  xix.  11  ;  Solo- 
mon, 1  Kings  i.  39  (by  the  high  priest)  ;  Joash,  2  Kings  ix.  12  ;  Jehoahaz,  xxiii. 
30  ;  and,  in  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  in  the  case  of  Jehu,  who  was  raised 
to  the  throne  by  the  instrumentality  of  a  prophet.  The  anointing  of  a  king  is 
nowhere  else  spoken  of, — a  circumstance  which  has  given  support  to  the  Rab- 
binic view,  that  this  rite  was  only  practised  at  the  elevation  of  a  new  dynasty, 
or  when  an  exceptional  case  of  succession  occurred,  but  omitted  when  the  succes- 
sion was  regular  (4).  If  this  view  is  correct,  anointing  must  be  regarded  as  a  rite 
the  efficacy  of  which  continued  as  long  as  the  regular  succession  to  the  throne  was 
uninterrupted.  And  this  is  undoubtedly  consistent  with  the  Old  Testament  idea  of 
the  connection  of  the  dynasty  with  its  founder, — Hiri'  TS'V"^,  the  Lord's  anointed, 
being  the  usual  designation  of  the  theocratic  king  (comp.  such  passages  as  Ps. 
XX.  7,  xxviii.  10,  Ixxxix.  39,  51,  etc.).  Anointing  was  a  symbol  of  endowment 
with  the  Divine  Spirit  (comp.  1  Sam.  x.  1  in  connection  with  ver.  9  sq.,  xvi.  13), 
the  gift  which  is  the  condition  of  a  wise,  just,  and  powerful  government, — all 
ability  to  rule  righteously  being  but  an  outflow  of  Divine  wisdom  (Prov.  viii.  15 
sq.)  Anointing  made  the  king's  person  both  sacred  and  inviolable  (1  Sam.  xxiv. 
7,  xxvi.  9,  compared  with  2  Sam.  ix.  22).  In  Saul's  case,  his  investment  with 
the  regal  functions,  by  his  public  presentation  before  the  assembled  peojile,  1 
Sam.  X.  20  sqq.,  on  which  occasion  Samuel  announced  to  them  "the  manner  of 
the  kingdom,"  and  wrote  it  in  a  book  which  was  laid  up  before  the  Lord,  i.e. 
deposited  with  the  Tora  in  the  sanctuary,  did  not  take  place  till  after  his  conse- 
cration. What  Samuel  explained  to  the  people  as  "the  manner  of  the  king," 
in  viii.  11  sqq.,  is  not  meant  here  (as  the  passage  has  so  frequently  been  mis- 
understood), for  the  latter  was  just  what  the  people  desired,  viz.,  that  he 
should  be  "like  the  kings  of  the  heathen  nations"  (5).  We  afterward  find, 
2  Kings  xi.  12,  that  a  copy  of  the  law  was,  in  accordance  with  the  injunction 
Deut.  xvii.  18  sq.,  presented  to  the  king  together  with  the  crown.  Saul  having 
by  a  victory  over  the  Ammonites  obtained  the  recognition  of  the  people  (ch.  xi.), 
Samuel  retired  from  the  office  of  judge,  to  execute  from  henceforth  only  the 
duties  of  prophet,  and  of  watchman  of  the  theocracy. 

(1)  See  my  article  "  Konige,  Konigthum  in  Israel"  in  Herzog's  Real-EncyUop. 
viii.  p.  10  sq.  [Diestel,  art.    "Konigthum"  in  Eiehm]. 

(2)  Judg.  viii.  23:  "  I -will  not  rule  over  you,  neither  shall  my  son  rule   over 
you  :  the  Lord  shall  rule  over  you." 

(3)  A  similar  mode  of  proceeding  was  observed  at  the  choice  of  David,  1  Sam. 
xvi.  7,  comp.  with  2  Sam.  vii.  8,  18,  Ps.  Ixxviii.  70. 

(4)  Comp.  the  still  very  useful  work  of  Schickard,  Jus  regium  EebrcEorum  c.  an- 
imadvers.  J.  B.  Carpzovii,  1674,  p.   77  ;    J.  G.    Carpzov,  App.  hist.  crit.  ant.  sacr. 

p.  56. 

(5)  Neither,  however,  can  a  constitution  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  word,  or  a 
compact  between  ruler  and  people,  be  supposed. 


370  THE    DEVELOPMENT   OP   THE   THEOCRACY  [§  164. 

SECOND   DIVISION. 

PERIOD   OF   THE   UNDIVIDED   KINGDOM. 

I.    SAUX,. 

§  164. 

The  history  of  Israel  during  the  time  of  the  undivided  kingdom  is  separated  by 
the  reigns  of  its  three  hings  into  three  sections,  essentially  differing  in  character. 

The  reign  of  Saul  at  once  displays  the  hingdom  in  conflict  with  the  theocratic 
principle  maintained  by  the  prophets.  Saul  fell  a  victim  to  his  efforts  to  render 
the  kingdom  independent  [of  divine  restraint],  though  at  the  commencement  of 
his  reign  he  seems  undoubtedly  to  have  supported  the  reforming  zeal  of  Samuel, 
by  his  extermination  of  necromancy  (1  Sam.  xxviii.  9).  He  regarded  his  royal 
office  chiefly,  however,  on  its  warlike  side,  which  the  dangers  constantly  menacing 
him  on  the  part  of  the  Philistines  never  suffered  him  to  lose  sight  of  (1  Sam.  xiii. 
8-14)  (1).  That  his  submission  to  the  prophet  was  not  unlimited,  was  shown  by 
even  the  first  test  imposed  upon  him  by  Samuel,  viz.  that  of  waiting  seven  days 
Ijefore  the  sacrifice  (1  Sam.  xiii.  8-14,  compared  with  x.  8,)  on  which  account 
Samuel  announced  to  him  that  his  kingdom  should  not  endure  (2).  Ignoring, 
nevertheless,  the  evident  consistency  with  which  the  prophet  treated  him,  and 
transgressing  his  command  for  the  second  time  after  his  victorious  contest  with 
the  Amalekites,  ch.  xv.,  against  whom  he  failed  to  execute  tha  Hherem,  t\ie 
Divine  sentence  of  rejection  was  immediately  pronounced  against  him.  The 
answer  then  given  by  Samuel,  ver.  22  sq.,  to  the  king,  when  besought  to  palliate 
his  disobedience,  contains  what  may  be  called  the  programme  of  prophetship, 
which,  as  the  office  of  the  Spirit,  was  to  censure  all  hypocrisy,  and  to  advocate, 
in  opposition  to  all  self-righteousness,  the  sole  supremacy  of  the  Divine  will  (3). 
In  the  execution  of  his  office,  the  prophet  was  not  permitted  to  yield  to  that 
human  sympathy  with  which  Samuel  personally  regarded  Saul  (see  xv.  11,  xvi.  1). 
From  this  time  forward  Saul  was  gradually  but  certainly  approaching  the  consum- 
mation of  his  tragic  fate.  Samuel  anointed  the  shepherd  David,  the  youngest  son 
of  Jesse,  a  descendant  of  Ruth  the  Moabitess, — who,  as  a  convert  from  heathenism, 
had  been  incorporated  into  the  covenant  people  (Ruth  iv.  22), — king  in  his  stead. 
Samuel  seems  after  this  to  have  retired  into  the  seclusion  of  the  association  of 
prophets  at  Ramah.  The  prophets  held  no  further  intercourse  with  Saul  :  David 
was  now  in  their  eyes  the  lawful  king,  and  with  him,  as  appears  from  1  Sam. 
xxii.  5,  they  associated  as  far  as  practicable  (4).  Saul,  however,  utterly  consumed 
his  strength  in  persecuting  David  and  all  whom  he  regarded  as  his  adherents. 
His  whole  existence  was  embittered  by  suspicion  of  those  about  him,  till  at  length 
the  unhappy  king,  after  seeking  counsel  from  the  shades  of  the  dead,  and  re- 
ceiving as  a  sentence  from  the  mouth  of  the  departed,  that  prophetic  testimony 
which  he  had  despised  when  announced  by  the  living,  perished  by  his  own  hand, 
after  an  unsuccessful  battle  against  the  Philistines  (5). 

(1)  1  Sam.  xiv.  52  :   "When  Saul  saw  any  strong  man.  or  any  valiant  man,  he 
took  him  unto  him." 


§  165.]  DAVID — HISTORY   OF   HIS   REIGN",  ETC.  371 

(3)  I  cannot  here  enter  into  particulars  ;  romp.  <he  elucidation  of  this  point  in 
Ewald's  Ilktory  of  Israel,  iii.  p.  29  sqq.,  and  the  whole  of  his  excellent  treatment 
of  the  reign  of  Saul,  which  is  one  of  the  best  portions  of  that  work. 

(3)  1  Sam.  XV.  22  sq.  :  "Hath  the  Lord  as  great  delight  in  burnt-offerings  and 
sacrifices  as  in  obeying  the  voice  of  the  Lord?  Behold,  to  obey  is  better  than 
sacrifice,  and  to  hearken  than  the  fat  of  rams  :  for  rebellion  is  the  sin  of  witch- 
craft, and  stubbornness  is  iniquity  and  idolatry.  Because  thou  hast  rejected  the 
word  of  the  Lord,  He  hath  also  rejected  tliee  from  being  king." 

(4)  The  prophet  Gad,  mentioned  1  Sam.  xxii.  5,  and  subsequently  reappearing 
in  the  history  of  David,  was  probably  a  member  of  the  association  of  prophets  at 
Ramah. 

(5)  The  narrative  in  the  First  Book  of  Samuel,  how  Saul  after  being  forsaken 
of  God,  advanced  step  by  step  to  his  tragical  end,  and  the  Books  of  Samuel  in 
general,  are  the  most  complete  portion  of  Old  Testament  history  ;  while  the  vivid 
and  graphic  descriptions,  and  the  sharpness  and  delicacy  with  which  the  chief 
characters  are  portrayed,  are  excellent  even  in  an  artistic  point  of  view.  On  the 
subject  last  mentioned,  comp.  especially  the  article  "Die  Geschichte  von  der 
Zauberin  in  Endor"  in  the  UrJanger  Zeitschrift  fur  Protest,  und  Kirche,  1851, 
September,  p.  133  sqq.  Saul  is  there  very  justly  characterized  as  of  "a  demoniac 
nature,  quickly  rushing  from  one  extreme  to  another,  enthusiastic  in  pleasure, 
deeply  depressed  in  sorrow,  and  finally  sinking  beneath  the  waves  of  despair." 

II.    DAVID. 

§  165. 

History  of  his  Heign,  his  Theocratic  Position  and  Personal  Religious  Development. 

It  was  only  by  the  tribe  of  Judah,  to  which  he  belonged,  that  David  was  at  first 
acknowledged  king.  The  other  tribes  still  adhered  to  the  house  of  Saul ;  and 
even  after  the  murder  of  Ishbosheth,  the  son  of  Saul,  this  division  of  the  state  con- 
tinued for  several  years.  David  had  reigned  seven  and  a  half  years  in  Hebron 
before  he  received  the  submission  of  all  Israel  in  a  form  in  which  the  theocratic 
principle  was  expressly  recognized  (3  Sam.  v.  3  sqq.)  (1).  Thus  began  the 
powerful  reign  of  David,  during  which,  by  a  series  of  successful  wars,  he  ren- 
dered the  kingdom  of  Israel  not  only  independent  of  foreign  domination,  but 
even  extended  its  northern  and  eastern  boundary  to  the  Euphrates,  and  raised 
himself  to  a  position  of  power  which  inspired  other  nations  with  fear  (comp.  Ps. 
xviii.  44  sq.).  Thus  the  kingship  of  David  becomes  the  type  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  which  overcomes  the  world  (2).  Israel,  however,  as  the  people  of  God,  was 
not  to  realize  its  vocation  to  the  rulership  of  the  world,  which  is  indeed  the  aim 
of  the  theocracy  (Ps.  ii.),  in  the  way  of  a  conquering  secular  state  ;  hence  the 
condemnation  of  that  nnmlering  of  the  peojjle  instituted  by  David  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  ; 
1  Chron.  xxi.),  which  was  probably  designed  to  lead  to  the  complete  military 
organization  of  the  nation  (3).  This  occurrence,  in  which  the  prophet  Gad  was 
conspicuous,  and  the  appearance  of  Nathan  in  the  well-known  case  (2  Sam.  xii.), 
show  that  the  prophets  were  mindful  of  their  office  as  watchmen  and  reprovers 
of  the  king,  even  under  David  (4).  In  general,  however,  we  now  see  the  two 
offices  exercised  harmoniously.  For  David  was  himself  filled  with  the  idea  of  a 
theocratic  ruler  :  his  life  and  acts  were  founded  on  the  one  thought  of  being 
found  as  the  servant  of  Jehovah,  the  God  who  had  chosen  him  and  taken  him 
from  the  sheepfolds  to  feed  His  chosen  people  (Ps.  Ixxviii.  70-72).     This  is  evi- 


372  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  THEOCRACY.        [§  1G5. 

dent  in  several  of  his  psalms, — in  that  mirror  of  kings,  Pa.  ci.,  in  which  he  por- 
trays a  sovereign  as  a  righteous  judge,  and  in  the  song  of  thanksgiving,  Ps.  xviii., 
which,  after  being  victorious  over  all  his  enemies,  he  sang  unto  the  God  who  had 
girded  him  with  strength  for  the  conflict,  and  subdued  the  nations  under  him 
(5).  The  union  of  the  kingship  with  the  Divine  rulership,  in  virtue  of  which  the 
king  was  settled  in  Jeliovah's  house  and  kingdom,  1  Chron.  xvii.  14  ("I  will 
settle  him  in  my  house  and  in  my  kingdom"), — sat  upon  the  throne  of  the  king- 
dom of  Jehovah,  xxviii.  5,  xxix.  23,  (more  briefly:  "upon  the  throne  of 
God"), — was  externally  effected  when  the  hill  of  Zion,  which  after  the  conquest 
of  Jerusalem  had  been  chosen  as  the  seat  of  government,  was  also  made  the 
seat  of  the  sanctuary  by  the  installation  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  (2  Sam.  vi.), 
which  was  now  again  brought  out  of  concealment.  For  although  sacrificial 
services  were  still  performed  in  the  old  tabernacle,  which  was  at  the  high  place 
at  Gibeon  (1  Chron.  xvi.  37-42,  comp.  2  Chron.  i.  3  sqq.),  yet  the  hill  of  Zion,  as 
the  dwelling-place  of  Jehovah,  Ps.  ix.  12,  Ixxiv.  2,  Ixxvi.  8,  Ixxviii.  68,  was 
from  this  time  forth  the  centre  of  the  theocracy.  Thence  proceeded,  ac- 
cording to  Ps.  iii.  5,  XX.  3,  ex.  2,  and  other  passages,  the  manifestations  of 
God's  grace  and  power  ;  while  every  hope  of  the  glorification  and  perfection 
of  the  Divine  kingdom  is  connected  with  Jerusalem,  the  city  of  God,  xlvi.  5, 
the  city  of  the  great  King,  (Jehovah)  xlviii.  3,  the  foundations  of  which  are 
upon  the  holy  hills,  Ixxxvii.  1,  and  which,  in  its  strong,  retired,  and  protected 
situation,  is  itself  a  symbol  of  the  church  of  God,  cxxv.  1  sq.,  and  of  which 
all  the  nations  of  the  earth  are  one  day  to  receive  the  rights  of  citizenship, 
Ps.  Ixxxvii.  (6).  The  Tcingship,  as  administered  by  David,  appears  neither  as  a 
necessary  evil  nor  an  improved  constitution,  but  as  a  new  ethical  power.  In  its 
king,  Israel  itself  attains  to  a  consciousness  of  its  national  dignity  ;  hence  the 
king  becomes  also  the  representative  of  the  people  ;  and  the  idea  of  Divine 
sonship,  which  in  the  first  place  appertains  to  the  people,  is  transferred  to  him 
(7).  Kingship  in  the  person  of  David  (and  relatively  in  that  of  Solomon)  exhibits 
also  a  certain  measure  of  the  priestly  character  ;  for  David  appeared  for  the  peo- 
ple before  the  Lord  with  sacrifices  and  intercessions,  and  brought  back  to  them 
the  Lord's  blessing,  2  Sam.  vi.  18  (8).  It  is  a  peculiarity  of  David,  like  Moses 
and  Samuel,  that  to  a  certain  degree  he  unites  in  himself  the  three  theocratic  dig- 
nities; for  the  gift  of  prophecy  also  was  bestowed  on  him,  the  Spirit  of  God  spoke 
by  him,  and  the  words  of  God  were  on  his  tongue,  2  Sam.  xxiii.  2.  Of  the 
greatest  importance,  however,  was  the  choice  of  David  to  be,  in  the  persons  of 
his  descendants,  the  permanent  holder  of  the  theocratic  Ungship,  in  virtue  of  that 
Divine  promise  delivered  to  him  by  Nathan,  which  forms  a  new  stage  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  kingdom  of  God.  When  David  had  rest  from  his  enemies  round 
about  him,  he  announced  to  the  prophet  Nathan  his  intention  of  building  a  tem- 
ple as  a  permanent  dwelling-place  for  Jehovah.  Nathan  at  first  agreed  with,  him, 
but  received  in  the  night  direction  from  God  to  bid  David  renounce  this  under- 
taking, on  account,  as  we  are  told  1  Chron.  xxii.  8,  xxviii.  3,  of  the  blood  which, 
as  a  warrior,  he  had  shed.  It  seemed  inconsistent  with  Divine  decorum  that 
this  work  of  peace  should  be  executed  by  hands  so  defiled  with  blood.  That 
son  of  David  whom  God  had  chosen  to  be  His  son  was  to  be  called  to  accomplish 
it.     On  the  other  hand,  God  promised  to  build  David  a  house,  to  bestow  the 


§  165.]  DAVID — HISTORY   OF   HIS   EEIGN,  ETC.  373 

kingship  on  his  seed  for  ever,  and  though  chastisements  might  not  be  omitted, 
never  to  withdraw  His  favor  from  him  (see  the  commentary  on  this  passage  in  Ps. 
Ixxxix.  20-28).  In  the  history  of  revelation,  the  eternal  covenant  of  God  with 
David  and  his  seed  now  enters  as  a  new  element  (comp.  2  Sam.  xxiii.  5)  ;  the 
full  manifestation  of  the  kingdom  of  God  being  henceforth  combined  with  the 
realization  of  the  "sure  mercies  of  David,"  Isa.  Iv.  3,  comp.  with  Ps.  Ixxxix. 
50  ;  and  thus  upon  the  foundation  of  the  theocratic  notion  of  kingship  arose  the 
prophecy  of  its  antitypical  perfection  in  the  Messiah  (9). 

It  is  not,  however,  solely  in  virtue  of  his  theocratic  position,  but  also  by  reason 
of  his  personal  religioics  development,  that  David  is  an  important  character  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  Old  Testament.  The  contrast  hetween  sin  and  grace,  which  it  is  the  object 
of  the  psedagogy  of  the  law  to  bring  to  light,  appeared  in  all  its  sharpness  in  his 
inner  life  ;  and  that  life  brings  to  view,  as  its  external  course  advanced  in  a  state 
of  continual  conflict,  both  the  deep  degradation  of  the  fallen,  sin-burdened  man, 
and  the  elevation  of  a  spirit  richly  endowed  with  Divine  grace.  To  a  greater 
degree  than  any  other  Old  Testament  character,  he  experienced  the  restlessness  and 
desolation  of  a  soul  burdened  with  the  consciousness  of  guilt,  the  longing  after 
reconciliation  with  God,  the  struggle  after  purity  and  renovation  of  heart,  the 
joy  of  forgiven  sin,  the  heroic,  all-conquering  power  of  confidence  in  God,  the 
ardent  love  of  a  gracious  heart  for  God  ;  and  has  given  in  his  Psalms  imperish- 
able testimony  as  to  what  is  the  fruit  of  the  law  and  what  the  fruit  of  faith  in  man. 
And  in  saying  this,  we  have  touched  upon  that  particular  in  which  David  most 
powerfully  affected  the  spiritual  life  of  his  people.  It  was  in  him,  the  sweet  singer 
of  Israel,  as  he  is  called  2  Sam.  xxiii.  1,  that  sacred  lyric  poetry  &tt&\nQdL  its  climax 
in  Israel.  Sacred  song,  which,  to  judge  by  existing  specimens,  had  previously 
manifested  more  an  objectively  epic  than  a  subjectively  lyric  character,  had  indeed 
been  cultivated  in  Israel  from  the  earliest  times  (as  was  shown  §  105,  note  10, 
and  §  113)  ;  but  it  was  not  till  after  it  had  been  elevated  by  David  into  an  essen- 
tial element  of  worship  (on  which  see  the  next  §),  and  the  jaeople  had  received  from 
him  and  other  poets  of  his  times  a  copious  supply  of  sacred  songs,  that  they  could 
duly  learn  how  to  bring  before  God  in  music  and  song  the  joy  and  grief,  the  hope 
and  fear,  the  prayer  and  praise  that  moved  their  inmost  heart.  It  is  impossible 
to  rate  too  highly  the  treasure  that  Israel  possessed  in  the  Psalms,  that  copy- 
book of  the  saints,  as  Luther  called  them  ;  nor  can  it  be  doubted  that  it  was 
chiefly  by  means  of  the  Psalms  that  the  word  of  God  dwelt  in  the  homes  of  Israel, 
and  that  the  knowledge  of  the  sacred  history  was  kept  up  among  the  people. 
(§  105,  note  10.) 

(1)  In  2  Sam.  v.  2  the  people  express — in  perfect  accordance  with  Deut.  xvii. 
15 — their  acknowledgment  of  the  Divine  call  of  David  :  "  Jehovah  said  unto 
thee,  Thou  shalt  feed  my  people  Israel,  and  thou  shalt  be  ruler  over  Israel  ;"  and 
David  hereupon  concludes  a  covenant  before  Jehovah,  with  the  people  as  repre- 
sented by  their  elders.  The  expression  r\"i3  .  .  .  UTyl  ri^p^l,  ver.  3,  involving 
the  notion  that  the  two  contracting  parties  had  not  equal  rights  (comp.  §  80 
above),  should  be  observed. 

(2)  Hence  all  the  attributes  of  the  latter  are  ascribed  to  him  :  he  is  destined  to 
subdue  the  heathen  (Ps.  xviii.  44,  48)  ;  his  dominion  is  to  extend  to  the  end  of 
the  earth  (ii.  8,  comp.  Ixxii.  8,  etc.),  and  is  of  continual  and  eternal  duration  (2 
Sam.  vii.  16,  xxiii.  5),  etc.     (Art.  "  Konige  in  Israel.") 


374  THE    DEVELOPMENT    OF   THE   THEOCRACY.  [§  lfi5. 

(3)  See  on  this  narrative  §  200,  and  Ewald  in  llic  10th  Jahrhuch  der  Hbl. 
Wissenschqft,  p.  34  gqq. 

(4)  When  Gad  is  called  David's  seer,  2  Sam.  xxiv.  11,  1  Chron.  xxi.  <J,  there  is 
no  reference  to  any  special  official  position  at  court,  in  tiie  sense  in  wliicli  court 
prophets  have  been  spoken  of  as  a  kind  of  king's  privy  councillois.  The  inde- 
pendence of  the  prophetic  office  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  there  is  no  mention  of 
prophets  in  those  passages  in  which  the  officials  of  David  and  Solomon  are  enu- 
merated (2  Sam.  viii.  1(3,  xx.  23  ;  1  Chron.  xxvii.  32  sqq.  ;  1  Kings  iv.  2  sqq.), 
though  even  the  high  ])riests  appear  in  these  lists  of  royal  functionaries  (art. 
"  Propheteuthum  des  A.  T. "). 

(5)  Hence  in  the  history  of  the  kings  of  Israel,  all  the  successors  of  David  are 
judged  of  according  to  their  conformity  to  his  example  ;  nothing  higher  can  be 
said  of  them  than  that  they  walked  in  the  ways  of  David. 

(6)  On  the  importance  of  the  situation  of  Jerusalem,  see  Ritter'' s  Erdhmde,  xvi. 
p.  297  :  "  Jerusalem,  built  in  the  middle  of  Judea,  away  from  the  great  roads  of 
communication  with  the  East,  protected  and  cut  off  from  the  rest  of  the  world, 
— on  the  east  by  the  Wilderness  of  the  Dead  Sea,  on  the  north  and  west  by  the 
most  difficult  mountain-passes  of  Syria  and  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  on  the  south 
by  the  deserts  of  Edom  extending  far  beyond  Hebron,  and  the  plains  of  undu- 
lating sands  sj^read  out  before  Egypt, — itself  standing  on  high  rocky  ground, 
without  rich  plains,  almost  without  arable  fields,  without  a  river,  nay,  almost 
without  natural  springs  or  depth  of  soil, — this  Jerusalem  has  nevertheless  ac- 
quired an  importance  among  capitals  with  which  only  that  of  Rome  and  Con- 
stantinople in  the  West  can  be  compared."  Ps.  cxxv.  1:  "They  that  trust  in 
the  Lord  shall  be  as  Mount  Zion,  which  cannot  be  removed,  but  abideth  for  ever. 
As  the  mountains  are  round  about  Jerusalem,  so  the  Lord,  is  round  about  His 
people  from  henceforth,  even  for  ever." 

(7)  Comp.  §  82.  1.  The  theocratic  king  is  the  son  of  God^  the  first-born  among 
the  kings  of  the  earth  (2  Sam.  vii.  14  ;  Ps.  xxix.  27  sq.,  comp.  ii.  7).  By  sonship 
to  God  is  expressed  chiefly  the  relation  of  love  and  faithfulness  in  which  God 
stands  to  the  ruler  of  His  people.  The  significance  of  sonship  must  not,  however, 
(as  Hengstenberg,  on  Ps.  ii.  7,  thinks),  be  limited  to  this  ;  but  the  term  further 
implies  that  the  theocratic  king  is  in  this  capacity  begotten  of  God  (comp.  Ps. 
ii.  7),  that  his  dignity  is  of  Divine  origin,  his  sovereignty  a  reflection  of  the 
Divine  glory  (comp.  Ps.  xxi.  4,  6).  In  like  manner  the  judges  of  the  people 
are  also  called  gods,  and  sons  of  the  Highest  (comp.  §  98),  because  their  office 
originates  in  the  judicial  authority  of  God.     (Art.  "  Konige  in  Israel.") 

(8)  Comp.  also  1  Chron.  xxix.  10  ;  1  Kings  viii.  14,  55.  This  was  done,  how- 
ever, without  trenching  upon  the  special  duties  of  the  priesthood.  For  the 
assistance  of  the  priests  was  not  excluded  from  the  sacrifices  of  kings,  2  Sam. 
vi.  17  ;  1  Kings  iii.  4  ;  2  Chron.  i.  G  ;  1  Kings  viii.  G2  sqq.,  ix.  25  ;  nor  is  it  any- 
where said  that  David  and  Solomon  performed  with  their  oicn  hands  the  sacrificial 
functions  allotted  by  the  law  to  the  priests.      (See  above  art.) 

(9)  [In  connection  with  his  view  of  David's  character,  which  rests  upon  an 
undue  prominence  given  to  its  dark  side,  Reuss  (comp.  especially  §  156  sq.  159.) 
denies  the  David  ic  composition  of  all  the  Psalms.  He  cannot  understand  how 
in  uncultivated  men  belonging  to  a  rude  age,  with  its  low  standard  of  morality, 
religious  depth  and  inwardness  together  with  moral  nobleness  can  coexist 
with  low  ethical  views  which  a  fuller  culture  must  condemn,  and  with  outbreaks 
of  unbridled  passion.  The  historian  Ranke  {WeUgeschichte,  i.  p.  59  sq.),  though 
perhaps  not  far  removed  from  Reuss  in  his  position  in  regard  to  Scripture  and 
revelation,  has  estimated  the  character  and  conduct  of  David  more  justly  than  the 
theologian.  What  Diestel  (art.  "  David  "  in  Riehm),  Orelli  (in  Herzog,  2d  ed.  iii. 
p.  521  sqq.),  and  Kohler  (ii.  186  sqq.)  have  urged  against  the  picture  of  David 
given  by  Duncker  and  Seinecke,  refutes  in  part  the  view  presented  by  Reuss,  against 
which  the  remarks  of  F.  W.  Schultz  (in  Zockler,  i.  273  sq.)  are  more  expressly 
directed,  who  snys,  among  other  things  :  "To  doubt  that  David  as  a  Psalmist  gave 
expression  to  his  best  and  holiest  feelings,  and  that  as  such  he   subsequently 


i^  166.]  THE    FORM    OF    WOESHIP    UNDER    DAVID.  375 

had  a  special  care  for  the  enrichment  uf  public  worsliip,  is  possible  only  for  him 
who  mistakes  the  religious  standpoint  of  the  monarch  and  liis  people  at  the 
time.  If  Reuss  thinks  that  scarce  anything  but  songs  of  heroes  and  victory  and 
love  would  have  swept  across  the  chords  of  his  harp,  he  has  simply  changed  the 
Israelitish  lion  of  God  into  a  medieval  knight."] 

§166. 

The  Form  of  Worship  xinder  David  (1). 

The  building  of  the  temple  which  David  was  not  suffered  to  accomplish,  was  at 
all  events  prepared  for  by  this  monarch.  For  it  is  evident  from  2  Sam.  viii.  11 
that  he  accumulated  considerable  treasures  for  the  sanctuary,  by  dedicating  to  the 
Lord  all  the  gold,  silver,  and  other  booty  which  he  took  in  his  wars.  The 
numerical  statements  of  1  Chron.  xxii.  are  evidently  excessive  ;  but  Ewald  is 
certainly  in  the  right  when  he  remarks,  that  unless  Solomon  on  entering  upon  the 
government  had  found  considerable  treasures,  he  could  not  so  quickly  have  com- 
menced the  work  of  building.  David,  moreover,  manifested  an  active  zeal  for 
'public  worship,  which  manifested  itself,  in  the  first  place,  with  respect  to  the 
organization  of  the  priesthood.  Tlie  narrative  in  1  Sam.  xxii.  10,  according  to 
which  Saul  caused  eighty-five  priests  to  be  put  to  death  in  one  day  at  Nob,  shows 
that  the  number  of  the  priests  must  have  considerably  increased  during  the 
period  of  the  judges.  ZadoTc  of  the  line  of  Eleazar,  and  Abiathar  of  the  line  of 
Ithamar,  great-grandson  of  Eli  according  to  Jewish  tradition,  appear  contem- 
poraneously as  high  priests  during  the  time  of  David  (3  Sam.  xx.  25)  (2).  Zadok 
being,  according  to  1  Chron.  xvi.  39,  stationed  at  the  tabernacle  at  Gibeon, 
Abiathar  must  have  officiated  in  the  sacred  tent  in  wliich  was  the  ark  of  the 
covenant  at  Jerusalem  (3).  David  now  regularly  organized  the  priestly  service,  by 
dividing  the  priests  into  twenty-four  classes  (n'lpynQ),  of  which  sixteen  belonged 
to  the  line  of  Eleazar  and  eight  to  that  of  Ithamar,  1  Chron.  xxiv.  3,  comp.  with 
2  Chron.  viii.  14,  xxxv.  4  sqq.  Each  class  had  a  president  at  its  head  ;  these 
were  the  D'JObn  "'"1^,  xxxvi.  14,  Ezra  x.  5,  or  D'jniin  'K/'N"!  (LXX  apxavreg  tuv 
iepeuv),  Neh.  xii.  7,  called  also  tJ'lp  "l)^,  1  Chron.  xxiv.  5  (comp.  Isa.  xliii.  28). 
Each  class  had  to  officiate  for  a  week,  viz.  from  Sabbath  to  Sabbath,  2  Chron. 
xxiii.  4.  The  order  of  the  classes  was  determined  by  lot  ;  see  1  Chron.  xxiv.  (4). 
David  also  organized  the  service  of  the  Levites.  Opportunity  for  using  this  was 
chiefly  afforded  him  by  the  introduction  of  music  into  public  worship,  in  which, 
according  to  the  supplementary  notice,  2  Chron.  xxix.  25,  he  is  said  to  have  fol- 
lowed the  Divine  directions  delivered  to  him  by  the  prophets  Grt^  and  Nathan. 
By  this  service  of  song,  by  which  words  as  well  as  acts  were  made  prominent  in 
public  worship,  the  spirituality  of  the  temple  service  was  increased, — the  matter 
of  some  of  the  psalms  being,  moreover,  directed  against  a  dead  externalism  in 
Divine  worship.  This  is  manifest  even  on  the  first  occasion  on  which  David  gave 
directions  with  respect  to  music  in  public  worship,  viz.  at  the  bringing  up  of 
the  ark  to  Mount  Zion  (1  Chron.  xiii.  2,  ch.  xv.  sq.,  comp.  with  vi.  16  sqq.),  when 
David,  as  we  are  told  1  Chron.  xv.  16,  commanded  the  chiefs  of  the  Levites  "to 
appoint  their  brethren  the  singers,  with  stringed  instruments,  harps,  and  lutes, 
and  cymbals,  to  sing  aloud  and  lift  up   the  voice  with  joy."     For  Ps.  xxiv.  was 


376  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  THEOCRACY.         [§  166. 

undoubtedly  composed  upon  this  festive  occasion  ;  and  its  teaching  is,  that  the 
God  who  now  so  graciously  condescends  to  make  His  entrance  into  Zion  with  the 
ark  of  the  covenant,  is  the  Creator  and  Lord  of  the  earth,  the  ruler  of  the  hosts  of 
heaven,  and  that  he  only  may  venture  to  approach  Him  in  His  holy  place,  who 
has  clean  hands  and  a  pure  heart,  who  has  not  lifted  up  his  soul  to  vanity,  nor 
sworn  deceitfully.  Nor  less  do  we  recognize  in  others  of  the  most  ancient  psalms 
respecting  the  sanctuary  on  Zion  {e.g.  Ps.  xv.  and  the  magnificent  song  of  Asaph, 
Ps.  1.)  the  echo  of  the  prophetic  words,  1  Sam.  xv.  22  (see  above,  §  164  and  note 
3).  According  to  1  Chron.  xvi.  37  sqq.,  Asaph  and  his  kinsmen  were  appointed 
singers,  and  the  Jeduthunites,  Obed-edom  and  Hosah  and  their  kinsmen,  door- 
keepers before  the  ark  at  Jerusalem  ;  and  Heman  and  Jeduthun  singers,  and  the 
sons  of  Jeduthun  doorkeepers,  at  the  tabernacle  at  Gibeou.  Toward  the  close  of 
liis  life,  David,  with  a  view  to  the  needs  of  the  future  temple,  arranged  a  more 
complete  organization  of  Levitical  services  (1  Chron.  xxiii.  sq.),  dividing  (ver.  3) 
the  38,000  Levites  who  were  at  that  time  thirty  years  old  and  upward  (5)  into 
four  classes,  three  of  which  had  charge  of  the  service  of  the  sanctuary,  viz.  Ist,  the 
.servants  of  the  priests  (24,000)  ;  2<Z,  singers  and  musicians  (4000)  ;  3(Z,  door- 
keepers (4000)  ;  to  the  fourth  class,  (6000)  called  ofiicers  and  judges,  was  deliv- 
ered the  care  of  external  affairs  (njl^^'riri  npK'7?pn,  xxvi.  29)  (16).  The  first  class 
(7)  was  subdivided  into  twenty-four  courses  corresponding  with  the  twenty-four 
classes  of  priests,  the  descendants  of  Gershon  constituting  six,  those  of  Kohath 
nine,  and  those  of  Merari  nine  courses  ;  the  class  of  singers  and  minstrels  (xxv. 
9  sqq.)  into  twenty-four  bands,  each  of  which  had  a  president  and  eleven  masters 
of  the  same  family  at  its  head  (8).  The  service  of  the  doorkeepers  was  organized 
in  military  fashion,  the  idea  of  the  camp  of  Jehovah  in  the  wilderness  being 
transferred  to  the  sanctuary,  ix.  19  ;  2  Chron.  xxxi.  2.  It  is  self-evident  that  the 
arrangements  instituted  by  David  could  not  be  fully  carried  out  till  the  comple- 
tion of  the  temple  by  Solomon,  as  is  indeed  expressly  stated  2  Chron.  viii.  14 
sq.  (9).  The  class  of  servants  to  the  priests  was  assisted  in  the  lower  kinds  of 
service  by  the  so-called  NetMnim.  The  temple  servants  (^lepoSovloc,  Joseph.  Antiq. 
xi.  5.  1  sq.),  who  were  probably,  comp.  Aben  Ezra  on  Ezra  ii.  43,  originally  the 
descendants  of  the  Giheonites,  whom  Joshua,  according  to  Josh.  ix.  27,  made 
hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water  for  the  congregation  and  for  the  altar  for 
all  times  (10),  are  so  called  in  the  post-Babylonian  books  (1  Chron.  ix.  2  ;  Ezra 
vii.  24,  etc.).  To  this  race,  however,  which  must  have  been  considerably  dimin- 
islied  by  the  bloody  persecution  raised  against  it  for  some  unknown  cause  by  Saul 
(2  Sam.  xxi.  1),  were  added,  in  consideration  of  the  necessities  of  the  increased 
service,  servants  presented  by  David  and  the  princes  for  the  use  of  the  sanctuary 
(Ezra  viii.  30),  i.e.  probably  slaves  acquired  in  war,  and  also,  according  to  ii.  58, 
Neh.  vii.  60,  xi.  8,  sons  of  the  servants  of  Solomon,  i.e.  descendants  of  the 
Canaanite  vassals  already  mentioned,  §  111.  The  name  D'rilJ  (i.e.  traditi,  comp. 
D'J^lJ,  Num.  viii.  19)  finds  its  explanation,  Ezra  viii.  20,  r\"lbj;S  Dn^/ni  TH  \r\yd 
D'l  vp  (whom  David  and  his  princes  gave  for  the  service  of  the  Levites)  (11). 

(1)  The  present  section  must  be  viewed  as  a  continuation  of  what  was  said  in 
§  93  sq.  on  the  Priesthood  and  Leviteship  (comp.  also  §  158).  [Comp.  also  the 
articles  "Hoherpriester,"  "Levi,  Leviten,"  "Nethinim,"  " Priesterthum  iin 
A.  T."  in  Herzog.     Reuss  and  the  critics  who  agree  with  him  assume  in  advanr  e 


§  16G.]  THE   FORM    OF   WORSHIP   UNDER   DAVID.  377 

the  Books  of  Chronicles  to  be  unhistorical  :  "A  later  generation  took  the  liberty 
to  attribute  to  David  the  best  of  what  was  first  done  by  his  son  for  the  splendor  of 
the  worship  of  Jehovah,  and  even  by  the  priesthood,  who  after  the  overthrow  of 
the  kingdom  introduced  various  institutions  of  caste  and  temple  service."] 

(2)  Comp.  §  158.  According  to  2  Sam.  viii.  17,  1  Chron.  xviii.  16,  xxiv.  3,  6, 
Zadok  appears  on  an  equality  with  Ahimelech  the  son  of  Abiathar.  Bertheau's 
view  of  1  Chron.  xviii.  16,  which  makes  Abiathar  have  a  son,  Ahimelech,  who 
performed  the  priestly  functions  in  conjunction  with  his  father,  obviates  the  gross 
confusion  arising  from  the  ordinary  view.     (Art.  "  Hoherpriester.") 

(3)  It  is  indeed  possible  that  in  pre-Davidic  times,  and  during  the  disintegra- 
tion of  the  theocracy,  priests  of  botli  lines  may  have  jointly  ])erformed  high-priestly 
functions.  The  statement  of  Josephus  {Ant.  viii.  1.  3),  that  the  priests  of  the 
line  of  Phinehas  {i.e.  Eleazar)  lived  in  a  private  condition,  while  the  line  of 
Ithamar  was  in  possession  of  the  high-priestly  dignity,  must  be  regarded  as  a 
mere  conjecture  (see  art.  cited). 

(4)  In  opposition  to  the  view  of  Herzfeld  {Geschichte  des  Volkes  Isi'ael  vor  der 
ZerstiJrung  des  ersten  Tempels,  i.  p.  381  sqq.),  who  regards  the  reference  of  this 
organization  of  the  priesthood  to  David  as  an  invention  of  the  Chronicler,  we 
would  only  here  mention  that  w^e  have,  in  Ezek.  viii.  16-18,  an  evident  trace  of 
this  division  of  the  priests  in  pre-Babylonian  times  ;  for  those  twenty-five  men 
worshipping  the  sun,  who  from  their  location  could  be  none  but  priests,  must,  as 
expositors  since  Lightfoot  correctly  suppose,  be  the  high  priest  and  the  heads  of 
the  twenty-four  priestly  orders.  How  this  institution  was  subsequently  devel- 
oped, see  the  article  quoted,  p.  185  sq. 

(5)  While  the  above  passages  presuppose  thirty  years  of  age  as  the  period  at 
which  official  duties  were  to  begin,  1  Chrou  xxiii.  25  sqq.  tells  us  that  the  enact- 
ment that  the  functions  of  the  Levites  were  to  begin  at  their  twentieth  year — an 
enactment  made  in  consideration  of  the  circumstance  that,  since  the  transference 
of  the  sanctuary  to  Jerusalem,  the  bearing  of  the  tabernacle  and  its  vessels  had 
ceased,  and  the  service  had  thus  been  lightened — is  to  be  attributed  to  David.  On 
the  relation  of  this  passage  to  those  cited  above,  see  Bertheau  in  loc.  The 
twentieth  year  was  henceforth  adopted  as  the  terminus  a  quo ;  comp.  2  Chron. 
xxi.  17,  Ezra  iii.  8. 

(6)  The  functions  assigned  to  those  classes  at  least  who  served  at  the  sanctuary, 
seem  for  the  most  part  to  have  been  hereditary  in  the  same  families. 

(7)  These  also  seem  to  have  merely  borne  the  name  D'17,  comp.  Neh.  xiii.  5,  xii. 
47  ;  yet  see,  on  the  other  hand,  1  Chron.  ix.  14,  where  the  musicians  are  called 
simply  Levites.  They  assisted  the  priests  in  the  offices  enumerated  in  the  23d, 
28th  sq.,  and  31st  sq.  verses.  See  particulars  in  the  article  quoted,  in  Herzog's 
Beal-Encyhlop.  viii.  p.  355. 

(8)  The  share  of  the  congregation  in  the  musical  service  of  the  sanctuary  seems  to 
have  been  generally  limited  to  saying  Amen  and  praising  the  Lord  (comp.  1  Chron. 
xvi.  36),  which  latter  refers  to  such  doxological  formulte  as  "  Hallelujah,"  "  O  give 
thanks  unto  the  Lord,  for  He  is  gracious,"  etc.,  and  the  like  (comp.  Jer.  xxxiii. 
11).  On  the  other  hand,  psalms  were  sung  by  the  people  themselves  in  festal 
processions  (comp.  Ps.  Ixviii.  26  sq.),  and  on  the  occasion  of  their  pilgrimages  to 
the  sanctuary  ;  for  which  latter  purpose  fifteen  of  the  Psalms  (Ps.  cxx.-cxxxiv.), 
according  to  the  most  probable  explanation  of  their  titles,  combine  to  form  a 
special  group.  Some  of  these  psalms  are  certainly  of  later  origin,  but  the  great 
antiquity  of  the  custom  is  confirmed  by  Isa.  xxx.  29.  The  last-named  passage 
shows  that  such  songs  were  especially  connected  with  the  celebration  of  the 
Passover  (compare  §  153  on  the  later  ritual). 

(9)  That  these  arrangements,  as  above  described,  actually  existed  in  the  pre- 
Babylonian  temple,  and  were  in  all  essential  points  introduced  by  Solomon,  cannot 
on  adequate  grounds  be  disputed  (comp.  Ewald,  Hist,  of  Israel,  iii.  p.  248).  For 
where  in  succeeding  centuries  could  a  period  be  found  to  which  the  reorganization 
pf  the  Levitical  orders  could  be  reasonably  assigned  ? 


378  THE    DEVELOPMENT   OF   THE   THEOCRACY.  [§  167. 

(10)  Deut.  xxix.  10  has  induced  some  to  transfer  the  origin  of  the  Nethinim  to 
the  Mosaic  period,  though  this  passage  does  but  speak  in  a  general  manner  of  the 
strangers  in  the  Israelite  camp,  upon  whom  the  lowest  services  were  imposed. 

(11)  All  these  were  undoubtedly  bound  to  observe  the  Mosaic  law,  for  would 
the  uncircumcised  have  been  suffered  in  the  sanctuary  ?  At  all  events,  this  was 
certainly  the  case  in  post-Babylonian  times,  Neh.  x.  29  sq. 

III.    SOLOMON. 

§167. 

The  Building  of  the  Temple. 

The  first  fulfilment  of  the  promise  given  to  David  (comp.  1  Kings  viii.  20)  ap- 
peared in  Solomon,  the  son  of  Bathsheba,  who  (affording  to  2  Sam.  xii.  25)  was 
educated  by  the  prophet  Nathan,  and  raised  mainly  by  his  influence  to  the  throne, 
in  opposition  to  the  claims  of  his  elder  brother  Adonijah.  During  a  long  period 
of  peace,  undisturbed  till  towards  the  close  of  his  long  reign,  and  living  in  the 
memory  of  the  people  as  a  type  of  the  Divine  peace  of  Messianic  times  (comp. 
with  1  Kings  v.  5,  iv.  25,  the  prophetic  passages  Mic.  iv.  4,  Zech.  viii.  10  sqq.), 
he  enjoyed  the  glory  -which  the  wars  of  his  father  had  obtained  for  the  kingdom. 

Among  Solomon's  works,  the  temple  (1)  offers  special  matter  for  consideration 
with  respect  to  biblical  theology.  It  was  seven  years  in  building,  and  stood  upon 
the  plateau  of  Moriah  (2),  enlarged  for  the  purpose  by  foundations  to  an  extent 
of  80,000  square  cubits.  It  was  thus  built  on  the  very  spot  on  which  David,  in 
conformity  with  the  directions  of  the  prophet  Gad,  had  formerly  reared  an  altar 
(2  Chron.  iii.  1,  comp.  with  2  Sam.  xxiv.  18).  The  description  of  the  tern  fie  given 
1  Kings  vi.  sq.  is  evidently  derived  from  a  document  compiled  by  an  eye-witness, 
though  the  text  seems  in  some  few  instances  to  have  been  incorrectly  transmitted. 
The  account  in  2  Chron.  iii.  sq.  differs  in  some  respects,  and  is  not  free  from  dif- 
ficulties. The  description  of  the  new  temple  Ezek.  xl.-xlii.  must  be  cautiously 
used  in  elucidation  ;  for  though  the  visional  delineation  of  the  priestly  prophet  is 
founded  upon  the  image  of  the  old  temple,  yet  the  latter  is  idealized,  and  even 
altered  in  some  particulars,  to  suit  the  predicted  forms  of  worship.  Josephus, 
too  (Antiq.  viii.  3),  who  frequently  follows  the  leadings  of  his  imagination,  can 
only  be  appealed  to  with  caution.  The  proportions  of  the  tabernacle  were 
in  all  essential  respects  followed  in  the  tetnpile  building,  HlH'  n'3,  w^hich  was  con- 
structed of  hewn  stone.  The  dimensions  were,  however,  doubled, — the  temple 
being,  according  to  1  Kings  vi,  2,  sixty  cubits  long,  twenty  wide,  and  thirty  high 
(3).  It  was  divided  into  two  parts ^  of  which  the  foremost,  called  in  the  stricter 
sense  V'l',  was  forty  cubits  long  ;  the  hindmost,  the  holy  of  holies,  called  '''^'^, 
twenty  cubits  long  and  as  many  high  and  broad,  thus  forming  a  cube  (4).  Ac- 
cording to  this  statement,  the  temple  would  be  externally  ten  cubits  lower  at  the 
holy  of  holies  than  at  the  holy  place,  just  as  in  Egy{)tian  temples  the  sanctuarium 
is  lower  than  the  temple  itself,  and  in  Christian  churches  the  choir  lower  than  the 
nave.  This  is,  however,  generally  doubted  ;  and  J^i"'7j'!,,  i.e.  upper  chamJ)ers,  being 
mentioned  1  Chron.  xxviii.  11,  2  Chron.  iii.  9,  it  is  supposed  either  that  these  were 
over  the  holy  of  holies,  or  (as  by  Kurtz  and  Merz)  that  the  holy  place  also  was  only 
twenty  cubits  high,  and  that  these  upper  chambers  extended  over  the  whole  length 


§  167.]  THE   BUILDING    OF   THE   TEMPLE.  379 

of  the  building  (5).  The  interior  of  the  temple  was  overlaid  with  wood,  upon 
which  were  representations  in  carved  work  of  cherubim,  palms,  and  flower  cups. 
Before  the  east  side  of  the  temple  was  a  forch^  O?''^?  the  whole  breadth  of  the 
house,  and  therefore  twenty  cubits  long  and  ten  wide.  Its  height  is  not  stated 
in  1  Kings  vi.,  but  2  Chron.  iii.  4  declares  it  to  have  been  120  cubits,  a  height  which 
cannot  be  justified  by  referring  to  the  propyliE  of  Egyptian  temples,  and  which,  on 
such  a  foundation  and  before  such  an  edifice,  was  impossible.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  we  have  here,  as  is  frequently  the  case  in  Chronicles,  a  textual  error  ;  and  a 
height  of  twenty  (Movers  reads  D'"!^;;),  or  more  correctly  of  thirty  cubits,  is  now 
generally  accepted.  Before  this  porch,  according  to  the  ordinary  view,  but 
within  it,  according  to  1  Kings  vii.  19,  stood  two  colossal  columns  of  brass,  called 
Jachin  and  Boaz  (j'P',  'J^3),  adorned  with  castings  of  lilies,  network,  and  pome- 
granates, vii.  15-22,  comp.  with  2  Kings  xxv.  16  sq.,  and  having  capitals  in  the 
form  of  full-blown  lilies.  Their  height,  which  is  differently  stated  in  Chronicles, 
was,  according  to  1  Kings  vii.  23,  twenty-three  (18  +  5)  cubits.  It  has  long  been 
a  matter  of  dispute  whether  these  pillars  stood  independently  (so  Bilhr),  or  sup- 
ported as  columns  the  roof  of  the  porch  (so  in  LXX  1  Kings  vii.  15,  and  among 
modern  writers,  Merz  and  others).  The  fact  of  their  being  reckoned  among  the 
vessels,  and  the  house  being  complete  without  them,  speaks  against  the  latter 
view  (6).  The  temple  was  surrounded  on  its  three  remaining  sides  by  a  secondary 
erection  of  three  tiers  of  side  chambers,  D'lj;^^,  designed  for  stores  and  treasures. 
The  height  of  each  story  being  five  cubits,  and  therefore,  if  allowance  must,  as  is 
probable,  be  made  for  projections,  the  height  of  tlie  whole  amounting  at  most  to 
eighteen  cubits,  there  would  be  sufficient  space  for  the  lattice  windows  men- 
tioned 1  Kings  vi.  4,  which,  moreover,  were  intended  not  for  the  purpose  of 
lighting  the  edifice — for  this  was  effected  by  lamps— but  for  ventilation.  The 
holy  of  holies  in  the  temple  as  well  as  the  tabernacle  was  quite  dark  (comp, 
viii.  12).  The  temple  was  next  surrounded  by  two  courts,  raised  one  above  the 
other  like  terraces  (comp.  2  Kings  xxi.  5),  of  which,  however,  the  inner  alone  was 
perhaps  completed  by  Solomon,  only  one  court  being  mentioned  1  Kings  vi.  36. 
This  is  called,  2  Chron.  iv.  9,  D'Jnbn  *l^n,  and  Jer.  xxxvi.  10,  the  upper  court, 
from  its  elevated  position.  It  was  undoubtedly  of  a  square  form,  like  the  court  of 
the  tabernacle,  and  of  the  temple  in  Ezekiel's  vision  (Ezek.  xl.  47)  (7).  The  second 
court,  nVnjn  n"ilj;n,  the  place  of  worship  for  the  people,  was  probably  separated 
from  the  first  not  by  a  wall  but  only  by  a  railing,  thus  allowing  the  congregation 
to  witness  what  was  transacted  in  the  court  of  the  priests.  Thus  the  separation  of 
the  people  from  the  holy  place  was  more  strictly  effected  in  the  temple  than  in  the 
tabernacle.  The  furniture  and  vessels  of  the  temple  corresponded  on  the  whole 
with  those  of  the  tabernacle,  except  that  they  were  of  increased  dimensions,  and 
that  some  were  found  in  the  former  which  were  absent  from  the  latter.  In  the 
court  of  the  priests,  as  in  the  court  of  the  tabernacle,  stood  the  altar  of  burnt-offer- 
ing ;  in  the  place  of  the  lavcr  of  purification  was  the  so-called  brazen  sea,  whose 
rim  was  in  the  form  of  a  full-blown  lily,  and  which  was  supported  by  twelve 
brazen  oxen,  three  turned  to  each  quarter  of  the  heavens  ;  on  each  side  of  the 
court  were  five  brazen  lavers,  for  the  purification  of  all  that  pertained  to  the  altar 
of  burnt-offering  ;  upon  the  brazen  bases  of  these  lavers  were  carvings  in  raised 
work  of  lions,  oxen,  palms,  and  cherubim.     In  the  ^3'n,  as  in  the  tabernacle, 


380  THE    DEVELOPMENT   OF   THE   THEOCRACY.  [§  168. 

were  the  altar  of  incense,  the  table  of  shew-bread  (according  to  3  Chron.  iv.  8, 
ten  tables  of  shew-bread)  ;  while  instead  of  the  one  candlestick  of  the  taber- 
nacle there  were  ten  golden  candlesticks,  five  on  each  side,  before  the  holy  of 
holies.  This  was  separated  from  the  /3'n  by  a  thick  wooden  partition,  in  whicli 
were  folding  doors  ( 1  Kings  vi.  31).  If  a  curtain  was,  according  to  2  Chron.  iii.  14, 
also  added,  it  is  uncertain  whether  this,  as  some  suppose,  covered  the  open  doors, 
or  as  others,  with  Thenius,  conjecture,  hung  over  the  doors.  Besides  this,  en- 
trance into  the  holy  of  holies  was  also  prevented  by  chains  of  gold,  for  so  must 
the  difficult  passage  1  Kings  vi.  21  be  explained,  as  by  Ewald  and  others.  In  the 
Holy  of  Holies  there  were,  besides  the  ark,  two  cherubim  ten  cubits  high,  whose 
four  wings,  each  four  cubits  long,  spread  out  horizontally,  touched  each  other 
in  the  midst  over  the  ark,  and  reached  on  the  right  and  left  to  the  two  walls  of 
the  Holy  of  Holies. 

(1)  The  literature  concerning  the  temple  of  Solomon  is  very  coiiious.  Griinei- 
sen's  ample  treatise,  "  Revision  der  jilngsten  Porschungen  liber  den  salomonischen 
Tempel,"  in  the  Kunsthlatt  of  the  Morgenhlatt.  1831,  Nos.  73-80,  formed  a  pro- 
visional close.  Then  followed  monographs  by  Keil,  Der  Tempel  Salomo''s,  183'.), 
corap.  his  Archdologie,  i.  p.  119  sqq.  ;  Bahr,  Der  Salomon.  Tempel,  1849  ;  Thenius, 
Das  vorexilische  Jerusalem  unci  dessen  Tempel,  an  appendix  to  his  Commentary  on 
the  Books  of  Kings,  1849  ;  comp.  also  Ewald,  History  of  Israel,  iii.  Merz's  Tempel 
zu  Jerusalem,  in  Herzog's  Real- Encylclop.  xv.  p.  500  sqq.,  forms  another  close,  and 
contains  a  complete  and  critical  review  of  the  literature  of  this  subject.  I  have 
entered  so  far  only  into  the  description  as  may  be  needful  with  respect  to  the 
symbolical  significance  of  the  sanctuary. 

(2)  Remains  of  Solomon's  temple  are  still  to  be  seen  in  the  gigantic  blocks  of 
masonry,  often  thirty  or  more  feet  long,  found  among  the  foundations  on  the 
temple  site. 

(3)  Merz,  id.  p.  503  :  Reckoning  the  cubit  at  1  foot  5  inches,  this  gives  90  feet  in 
length  and  30  in  breadth,  about  the  dimensions  of  a  moderate-sized  village  church, 
which  indeed  does  not  agree  with  the  words,  2  Chron,  ii.  45,  "and  the  house 
which  I  built  is  great,  for  great  is  our  God  above  all  gods."  Heathen  temples, 
however,  were  generally  small,  being  rather  receptacles  for  the  images  of  the 
gods  than  places  of  assembly  for  the  people. 

(4)  "lOT  probably  means  the  hinder  space,  not  the  place  of  speech,  laknriipLQv, 
oramli  secies,  the  word  being  lexically  connected  not  with  1|"1,  but  with  the  Kal 
1?"^,  to  be  behind  any  one. 

(5)  Bahr,  on  the  contrary,  supposes  a  clerical  error  in  1  Kings  vi.  2,  and  thinks 
that  the  whole  building  was  but  twenty  cubits  high. 

(6)  Merz  appeals  chiefly  to  Amos  ix.  1.  This  passage  would  unquestionably 
favor  the  columnar  character  of  the  pillars  ;  but  it  is  not  the  temple  at  Jerusalem 
which  is  here  spoken  of. 

(7)  The  notion  that  it  was  semicircular,  rests  upon  the  utterly  unauthorized 
comparison  of  Solomon's  temple  with  the  temple  of  Urania  at  Paphos. 

§168. 

Significance  and  Dedication  of  the  Temple. 

The  symholical  significance  of  the  temple  is  entirely  identical  with  that  of  the  taber- 
nacle. The  Book  of  Chronicles  (1  Chron.  xxviii.  19),  by  referring  to  the  inspi- 
ration of  Jehovah  the  plan  delivered  to  Solomon  by  David,  perceives  in  this  edi- 
fice the  impress  of  Jehovistic  ideas.     It  by  no  rneans  follows  from  the  circumstaRce 


§  168.]         SIGNTFICANCE   AND   DEDICATION   OF  THE  TEMPLE.  381 

that  Phoeuician  artisans  were  emploj'ed  on  the  building,  that  the  temple  of  Solo- 
mou  coincided  with  Phanician  temples.  Besides,  Hiram,  the  only  Phosuician 
foreman  mentioned,  was  only  employed  in  the  preparation  of  the  pillars  of  the 
porch  and  the  vessels,  1  Kings  vii.  13  sqq.,  and  he  had  but  to  carry  out  the  in- 
structions given  him  (2  Chron.  ii.  13,  '•''"j^^i?'.  "l^??)  (1).  The  two  pillars  of  the  porch 
have  in  the  first  place  been  incorrectly  regarded  as  a  heathen  symbol.  The  name 
yy,  signifies  "he  who  establishes;"  and  Tj;3,  probably  =  fj^  13,  "in  him  is 
strength,"  is  by  others  derived  from  the  Arabic  laghaza,  alacritas  (2).  The  mean- 
ing of  the  pillars  evidently  is,  that  God  has  here  established  His  temple  on  a  firm 
foundation  (comp.  Ps.  Ixxxvii.  1),  and  that  it  is  therefore  to  be  no  longer  a  trav- 
elling sanctuary  like  the  tabernacle  (comp.  with  respect  to  the  contrast  between 
the  latter  and  the  temple,  2  Sam.  vii.  5-7).  It  is  just  because  Jehovah  no  longer 
dwells  in  a  moving  tent,  but  in  a  settled  house,  that  the  cherubim  stand  in  the 
temple  upon  the  floor  of  the  Holy  of  Holies,  and  make  the  whole  place  the  con- 
stant abode  of  the  Divine  presence  (as  Hofmann  justly  remarks  in  his  Scliriftbe- 
weis).  It  is  a  matter  of  no  consequence  that  a  pillar  was  also  a  symbol  of  Saturn, 
as  the  sustainer  of  the  system  of  nature  (3).  If  Bruno  Bauer  regards  the  pillars  as 
symbols  of  the  penetrating  power  of  the  solar  beam,  it  must  be  remarked,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  these  pillars  were  not  obelisks,  whose  needle-like  form  is  emblem- 
atical of  the  rays  of  the  sun  (4).  Secondly,  the  twelve  oxen  which  supported  the 
brazen  sea  might  be  regarded  as  originally  a  symbol  of  nature,  namely,  as  symbolic 
of  the  months,  the  supporters  of  the  order  of  ever-fleeting  time.  It  is  not,  how- 
ever, easy  to  see  what  a  vessel  for  purification  could  have  to  do  with  such  a  sym- 
bol. The  number  twelve  being  always  in  worship  the  mark  of  the  covenant 
people,  the  twelve  tribes  approaching  Jehovah  with  animal  sacrifices,  by  means  of 
the  Levitical  priesthood,  may,  as  Keil  and  others  think,  be  rather  intended. 
Palms,  lilies,  and  pomegranates  (comp.  also  §  119)  are  chosen  as  decorations,  as 
the  most  beautiful  of  the  natural  productions  of  Palestine, — the  palm  being  even 
in  later  days  the  symbol  of  the  country  on  Jewish  coins.  The  reason  for  increas- 
ing the  one  candlestick  and  table  of  shew-bread  of  the  tabernacle  to  the  ten  candle- 
sticks and  ten  tables  of  Solomon's  temple,  is  found  in  the  greater  extent  of  the 
latter,  the  number  ten  being  also  itself  a  completed  unity.  But  the  clearest  proof 
that  Solomon's  temple  was  not,  as  some  extravagantly  assert,  a  temple  of  the  Sun 
or  of  Saturn,  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that,  when  Manasseh  subsequently  changed 
it  into  a  sanctuary  for  the  host  of  heaven,  the  existing  symbols  of  worship  were 
not  made  use  of,  but  others  introduced  (2  Kings  xxi.  5,  7,  xxiii.  11).  The  temple 
being  completed,  Solomon  had  the  arh  brought  into  it,  and  the  tabernacle  taken 
down  and  deposited,  together  with  its  sacred  utensils,  in  the  temple,  probably  in 
the  side  chambers,  1  Kings  viii.  4,  thus  putting  an  end  to  the  twofold  worship. 
The  king  then  himself  dedicated  the  temple  by  prayer  and  sacrifice  in  the  seventh 
month  (Tisri),  1  Kings  viii.  Then  followed  a  festival  of  fourteen  days'  duration 
(vers.  2  and  65,  comp.  2  Chron.  v,  3,  vii.  9sq.),  which  must  be  understood  as  ap- 
plying to  the  feast  of  the  dedication  from  the  8th  to  the  14th  Tisri,  and  to  the 
seven  days  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  from  the  15th  to  the  21st,  the  people  being 
dismissed,  according  to  1  Kings  viii.  66,  on  the  22d,  but  according  to  2  Chron. 
vii.  10,  not  till  the  23d,  i.e.  not  till  after  the  Azereth  on  the  eighth  day,  comp. 
§  156. — A  sanctuary  of  permanent  continuance    seemed  now  to  be  erected  ;  and 


383  THE    DEVELOPMENT   OF   THE   THEOCRACY.  [§  169. 

Solomon  expressed  in  his  prayer  the  hope  that  this  house  might  be  a  house  of 
prayer  for  all  nations  (1  Kings  viii.  41-43).  He  received,  however,  in  a  vision,  an 
intimation  from  God,  which,  while  it  granted  indeed  the  prayer  that  God  would 
dwell  in  the  temple,  and  renewed  the  promise  given  to  David,  threatened  the  de- 
struction of  the  temple  and  the  dispersion  of  Israel  among  all  nations,  in  case  they 
should  go  and  serve  other  gods. 

Concerning  the  temfjle  worship,  we  further  learn  from  ix.  25  that  Solomon 
offered  sacrifices  three  times  a  year,  which  refers  probably  to  the  pilgrimage 
feasts.  Solomon  having  at  the  commencement  of  his  reign  deposed  Abiathar  as 
an  adherent  of  Adonijah,  the  high-priesthood  again  devolved  to  the  line  of  Uleazar 
(ii.  37),  to  which  Zadok  belonged. 

(1)  Though  Vatke  makes  the  temple  of  Heracles  at  Tyre  the  model  of  Solomon's 
temple,  we  learn,  on  the  other  hand,  from  K.  O.  Miiller,  Archdol.  der  Kunst,  sec. 
3,  p.  298,  that  nothing  at  all  is  known  of  the  construction  of  this  temple  ;  and 
when  the  temple  of  the  Syrian  goddess  at  Hierapolis,  described  by  Lucian,  de  Dea 
Syria,  cap.  28  sqq.,  and  of  which  no  one  knows  whether  its  architecture  was  of 
specifically  Phoenician  character,  is  dragged  into  the  discussion,  every  one  can  see 
that  the  similarity  said  to  exist  between  the  two  temples  is  as  vague  and  indefinite 
as  that  between  a  hundred  others. 

(2)  It  is  the  notion  of  Ewald  {Hist,  of  Israel,  iii.p.  238),  that  Solomon  may  per- 
haps have  thus  designed  to  perpetuate  the  names  of  two  favorites,  or  perhaps  of 
two  of  his  younger  sons. 

(3)  When  Movers  (Phdnicier),  however,  thinks  that  the  pillar  Boaz  signified 
motion  proceeding  forth  from  eternal  repose, — creative  motion, — somewhat  too 
much  is  attributed  to  it ;  a  pillar  is  said  to  symbolize  motion — hicus  a  non  lucendo. 

(4)  [Schultz  (p.  384)  regards  them  as  symbols  from  the  Asiatic  Nature-religion  ; 
Vatke  dreams  of  the  phallus,  the  symbol  of  procreative  strength.] 

§  169. 

Heh'ew  Proverbial  Poetry :    The  Rhahhamim  (1). 

As  the  sacred  lyric  poetry  of  Israel  is  connected  with  the  name  of  David,  so 
Solomon,  whose  peaceful  times  invited  the  Israelitish  mind  to  self-introspection, 
was  the  father  of  the  Hebrew  proverbial  poetry,  1  Kings  v.  12  sq.,  iv.  28  sq.,  and 
thus  the  founder  of  the  Old  Testament  Hhokhma.  From  his  time  onward  there 
appeared  a  special  class  of  men  under  the  name  of  D'P^O,  [Hhakhamim]  "the 
wise"  (Prov.  i.  6,  xxii.  17,  xxiv.  23,  etc.),  who  applied  themselves  to  the  con- 
sideration of  the  moral  relations  of  life  and  the  manner  in  which  the  world  is 
ordered.  It  cannot,  however,  be  inferred  from  1  Kings  iv.  33  that  they  were 
addicted  to  physical  science,  nor  that  Solomon  commenced,  as  Ewald  e.g.  sup- 
poses, a  complete  natural  history.  For  when  it  is  there  said  that  "  Solomon 
spake  of  trees,  from  the  cedar  that  is  in  Lebanon,  even  unto  the  hyssop  that 
springeth  out  of  the  wall ;  he  spake  also  of  beasts,  and  of  fowls,  and  of  creep- 
ing things,  and  of  fishes,"  it  is  that  ethical  contemplation  of  nature  of  which 
we  have  specimens  in  Ps.  civ.  and  in  the  Book  of  Job,  especially  ch.  xxxix.- 
xli., — that  relative  knowledge  which  enabled  Solomon  in  his  proverbs  to  draw 
comparisons  and  parables  from  natural  objects,  which  is  intended,  and  which 
does  not  presuppose  a  scientific  knowledge  of  botany  and  zoology  (as  even  Keil 
in  loc.  thinks).     The  Hhakhamim  (or  the  wise)  were  at  any  rate  distinct  from 


§  169.]  HEBREW    PROVERBIAL    POETRY,  383 

those  theocratic  officials,  the  prophets  and  priests  (comp.  Jer.  xviii.  13,  though  it 
is  questionable  whether  DDH  is  to  be  there  taken  in  its  narrower  meaning ;  see, 
on  the  contrary,  viii.  9  sq.).  The  province  of  the  Old  Testament  Hholchma  was 
different  from  that  of  the  Law  and  of  Prophecy, — it  did  not  extend  to  theocratic 
enactments  and  directions  (2).  There  is  not,  however,  the  slightest  trace  that 
the  Hhakhamim  (as  Bruch  especially  represents  the  matter  in  his  Weisheitslehre 
der  Eebraer^  1831)  set  themselves  in  opposition  to  theocratic  enactments,  partic- 
ularly those  relating  to  worship,  and  occupied  the  position  philosophers  do  with 
respect  to  orthodox  theologians.  Such  a  notion  is  at  variance  with  the  fact  that 
Solomon,  who  built  the  temple  and  gave  completeness  to  the  ritual  of  worship, 
stands  at  the  head  of  these  men  ;  and  that  among  those  wise  men  mentioned  1 
Kings  iv.  31,  besides  himself,  viz.  Ethan,  Heman,  Chalcol,  and  Darda,  the  two 
first  named  were  jarobably  the  well-known  Levitical  chief  singers  (1  Chron.  xv. 
17)  (3).  A  circle  of  sages,  among  whom  the  king  was  distinguished  for  the  fer- 
tility and  many-sidedness  of  his  genius,  and  for  his  acuteness  in  solving  enigmat- 
ical questions  (comp.  besides  1  Kings  iii.  13  sq.,  x.  1),  was  probably  formed  at 
Solomon's  court.  An  association  of  Hhakhamim,  employing  themselves  in  the 
collection  of  literature,  must,  according  to  Prov.  xxv.  ],  have  also  existed  imder 
Hezekiah  (5).  This  does  not,  however,  prove  that  these  sages  had  any  official 
vocation  in  the  nation,  and  founded  institutions  like  the  schools  of  the  prophets  ; 
nor  that,  as  Ewald  expresses  it,  they  were  constantly  forming  more  perfect 
schools  (4).  Disciples,  eager  for  knowledge,  may  certainly  have  united  them- 
selves to  individuals  in  special  repute  for  wisdom  (comp.  such  passages  as  xiii. 
20,  XV.  12,  etc.,  in  connection  with  i.  6,  etc.,  already  quoted)  ;  but  the  Wisdom 
which  speaks  in  the  Proverbs  does  not  desire  to  be  the  mere  wisdom  of  the 
schools,  but  "  crieth  without  and  uttereth  her  voice  in  the  streets,"  i.  20.  The 
places  in  which  the  wise  dispensed  counsel,  administered  reproof,  exhortation,  or 
instruction,  as  circumstances  required,  discussed  the  problems  which  were  agitat- 
ing the  minds  of  men  (comp.  e.g.  Ezek.  xviii.  2  sq.),  excited  and  delighted  their 
hearers  by  witty  sarcasm,  etc.,  were  the  public  places  where  justice  was  adminis- 
tered and  the  affairs  of  the  community  debated, — where  even  prophets,  as 
occasion  demanded,  also  delivered  their  testimony  to  the  people.  The  description 
given  by  Job  of  himself,  ch.  xxix.  7-11  and  21-25,  may  be  mentioned  in  illustra- 
tion (6). 

(1)  [Comp.  the  art.  "  Padagokik  des  A.  T."  in  Schmid's  Pddagog.  EncyMo- 
pddie,  1st  ed.,  vol.  v.  p.  677  sqq.] 

(2)  Its  drift,  as  Delitzsch  states  it  in  his  excellent  article  "  Sprilche  Salomons" 
in  Herzog's  Real-Encyklop.  xiv.  p.  715,  is  towards  what  is  human  or  universal  in 
Israel,  what  in  the  worship  of  Jehovah  pertains  to  man  as  man,  and  what  in  the 
Law  is  of  common  obligation. 

(3)  So  Hengstenberg  and  Keil ;  Thenius  and  Delitzsch  dispute,  but  upon  insuf- 
ficient grounds,  the  identity  of  the  names.  For  the  refutation  of  the  opposite 
view  see  Hengstenberg  on  Ps.  88. 

(4)  It  cannot  be  determined  whether  these  "  men  of  Hezekiah"  constituted  a 
special  commission  whose  object  was  the  restoration  of  the  ancient  national  liter- 
ature (appendix  to  Drechsler,  Der  Prophet  Jesaja,  ii.  2,  p.  221),  or  formed  a  volun- 
tary association. 

(5)  In  the  treatise  "  Ueber  die  Volks-  und  Geistesfreiheit  Israels,"  Bibl.  Jahrb. 
i.  p,  97,  which  contains  many  other  jnst  observations. 


384  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  THEOCRACY.   '      [§  170. 

(6)  It  was  thus  that  Wisdom  became  that  intellectual  power  in  the  nation,  so 
well  described  by  Ewald  in  the  treatise  quoted  (art.  Padagohih  des  A.  T.).  For 
further  particulars,  see  the  third  part  of  the  Old  Testament  theology. 

§  170. 

Solomori's  External  Organizations.     The  Darh  Sides  of  his  Beign.     Division  of  the 

Kingdom. 

Solomon  employed  the  long  interval  of  peace  in  still  further  carrying  out  the 
organization  of  the  state,  in  rearing  various  edifices  and  fortifications,  especially  in 
Jerusalem  itself  (1  Kings  ix.  15  sqq.,  xi.  27),  and  in  the  promotion  of  industry  and 
commerce,  which  latter  extended  from  the  Edomite  ports  of  Elath  and  Ezion-geber, 
now  belonging  to  Israel,  as  far  as  to  Ophir,  i.e.  probably  the  lands  of  the  Indus  (1 
Kings  ix.  36  sqq.,  x.  11,  22)  (1).  This  "magnificent  reign"  (Hasse)  had,  how- 
ever, its  darTc  side.  The  king's  love  of  splendor  became  more  and  more  oppressive 
to  the  people,  and  he  sank  deeper  and  deeper  into  effeminacy  and  luxury,  till  he 
at  last  allowed  himself  1o  be  seduced  by  his  heathen  wives  into  an  open  breach 
with  theocratic  institutions,  by  erecting  for  their  sakes  (xi.  4  sqq.)  sanctuaries 
for  strange  gods  in  the  immediate,  neighborhood  of  Jerusalem,  ver.  7,  comp.  with 
2  Kings  xxiii.  13.  Ilis  intention  apparently  v/as  to  obtain  for  Israel  a  higher 
position  among  the  nations  of  the  world,  by  attempting  to  brealc  through  the  exclu- 
siveness  of  the  2)eo2)le ;  in  a  political  point  of  view,  by  opening  the  country  to  the 
commerce  of  the  Phoenicians,  in  a  religious  one,  by  striving  after  general  religious 
freedom.  Nor  were  the  people  themselves  free  from  religious  and  moral  liber- 
tinism, for  from  this  time  forward  we  meet  with  a  class  of  men  forming  a  contrast 
to  the  Hhakhamim, — lascivious  free-thinkers,  called  D'V/,  scorners,  in  the  Book 
of  Proverbs.  Their  definition  is  thus  given,  Prov.  xxi.  24,  where  a  proud  and 
insolent  one  who  acts  with  excess  of  audacity  is  called  ]*/  (3).  The  prophetic 
order,  however,  which  had,  it  seems,  long  remained  in  the  background,  now 
arose  against  the  king,  to  avenge  the  insulted  majesty  of  the  law.  After  a  warn- 
ing (1  Kings  xi.  11-13)  had  been  given  to  Solomon, — perhaps  by  Ahijah  the 
Ephraimite, — Jerotoam,  a  high  official  of  Solomon,  received  an  intimation  from 
the  prophet  Ahijah  that  ten  tribes  of  Israel  were  to  be  severed  from  the  house  of 
David  and  to  be  united  in  a  separate  kingdom  under  the  sceptre  of  Jeroboam, 
ver.  39  sqq.  (3).  The  procedure  of  Ahijah  on  this  occasion  corresponds  with 
that  adopted  by  Samuel  toward  Saul,  and  is  equally  incapable  of  being  explained 
from  self-seeking  motives,  as  is  attempted  e.g.  by  Ewald  {History  of  Israel,  iv.  p. 
287),  who  thinks  that  the  prophetic  order  was  again  seeking  to  exercise  supremacy 
over  the  kingship,  because  it  failed  to  perceive  that  the  period  of  prophetic 
power  was  past  (as  though  the  political  agency  of  the  prophets  would  not  be  now 
legitimately  exercised  !)  It  cannot  even  be  correctly  asserted  that  Ahijah  in- 
cited Jeroboam  to  rebellion.  With  respect  to  Solomon,  Ahijah  expressly  de- 
clared, ver.  34,  that  Jeliovah  would  let  him  be  ruler  of  Israel  all  the  days  of 
his  life  ;  and  Jeroboam  might  learn  how  he  was  to  behave  from  David,  who, 
humanly  speaking,  had  far  more  reason  for  rebelling  against  Saul,  but  who  waited 
for  that  Divine  leading  which  assured  to  him  the  issue  promised  without  arbi- 
trary interference  on  his  part  (see  Keil  in  he).     Jeroboam,  however,  seems,  even 


§  170.]  Solomon's  external  organizations,  etc.  385 

during  the  life  of  Soloinon,  to  liavc  stirred  up  the  people  aguinst  their  king.  He 
was  obliged  to  flee  to  Egypt ;  but  being  recalled  immediately  after  the  death  of 
Solomon,  he  placed  himself,  at  the  popular  assembly  convened  at  Shechem,  at 
the  head  of  those  who  petitioned  Rehoboam  on  the  part  of  the  people.  When 
their  reasonable  demands  were  perversely  rejected  by  Kehoboam,  ten  tribes 
renounced  their  allegiance,  and  made  Jeroboam  their  king.  In  vain  did  Eeho- 
boam  raise  a  considerable  force  from  that  part  of  the  nation  which  remained 
faithful  to  him  ;  a  word  from  the  prophet  Shemaiah  sufficed  to  disband  his  whole 
army  (xii.  23  sqq.  ;  3  Chron.  xi.  3  sqq.)  (4),  The  ancient  jealousy  of  the  two 
powerful  tribes  of  Ejihraim  and  Judah,  and  the  opposition  of  Judah  to  the  rest 
of  Israel,  which  had  already  resulted  in  a  temporary  division  of  the  kingdom 
after  Saul's  death  (§  165),  and  again  in  the  latter  days  of  David,  on  the  occasion 
related  2  Sam.  xix.  41-43,  xx.  1  sq.,  now  resulted  in  the  permanent  sejmration  of 
Israel  into  two  Icingdoms.  The  question,  Jiow  the  ten  tribes  tchich  cojnposed  the  northeryi 
Icmgdom  are  to  le  reckoned,  is  so  difiicult  to  answer,  that  many  have  endeavored, 
with  Keil,  to  regard  the  number  ten  as  merely  symbolical  ;  which  view  the  ex- 
pression "we  have  ten  parts  in  the  king,"  3  Sam.  xix.  43,  may  perhaps  be 
considered  to  corroborate.  The  tribe  of  Levi  not  being  reckoned  (as  already 
remarked,  §  92)  in  the  political  division  of  the  nation,  and  Benjamin  belonging, 
according  to  1  Kings  xii.  31,  3  Chron.  xi.  3,  x.  23,  xiv.  7,  to  the  kingdom  of 
Judah,  it  would  seem  that  the  number  ten  must  refer  to  the  remaining  tribes, 
Manasseh  and  Ephraim  making  two.  But  the  tribe  of  Simeon  cannot  possibly  be 
set  down  to  the  northern  kingdom,  although  3  Chron.  xv.  9  (xxxiv.  6)  assumes 
that  Simeonites  belonged  to  it.  The  lot  of  this  tribe  lay,  according  to  Josh.  xix. 
1-9,  within  the  realm  of  Judah,  in  the  south-west,  toward  Philistia  and  Idumea. 
It  seems  not  to  have  formed  a  comjiact  province,  but  to  have  consisted  of 
several  single  towns  and  districts.  The  Simeonite  town  Beer-sheba  is,  in  1  Kings 
xix.  3,  expressly  said  to  have  belonged  to  Judah.  On  the  other  hand,  Bethel, 
Gilgal,  and  Jericho,  chief  places  in  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  appear  as  towns  of  the 
northern  kingdom  ;  and  the  Benjamite  town  of  Ramah,  only  nine  miles  north  of 
Jerusalem,  belonged,  at  least  under  Baasha,  to  the  same,  according  to  xv.  17,  31. 
The  tribe  of  Benjamin,  too,  in  virtue  of  ancient  kinship,  had  always  adhered  to 
the  house  of  Joseph,  and  during  the  march  through  the  wilderness  had  been 
combined  into  a  triad  with  Ephraim  and  Manasseh,  Num.  ii.  17  sqq.,  x.  21-24 
(comp.  §  29  and  note  5).  In  the  former  disruption  of  the  kingdom,  it  had,  as 
the  tribe  to  which  Saul  belonged,  been  on  the  side  of  the  tribes  that  separated 
from  David  ;  nay,  even  subsequently,  we  find,  from  3  Sam.  xx.  1,  a  rebellion 
arising  in  Benjamin  at  the  instigation  of  Sheba.  So  too,  m  Ps.  Ixxx.,  which 
refers  to  the  carrying  into  captivity  of  the  northern  kingdom,  we  find  Benjamin 
placed,  ver.  3,  between  Ephraim  and  ]\Ianasseh.  The  actual  state  of  things  was 
that  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  was  divided  hetweeii  tTie  tico  hingdoms.  The  greater  part  of 
the  country  belonged  to  the  northern  kingdom,  while  the  certainly  more  populous 
part,  in  which  the  northern  part  of  Jerusalem  and  its  neighborhood  were  situated, 
was  united  to  the  kingdom  of  Judah.  Thus  it  was  true  both  that  the  house  of 
David,  strictly  speaking,  possessed  but  one  (entire)  tribe,  as  it  is  expressed  1 
Kings  xi.  13,  32,  36,  and  that  numerous  members  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin 
belonged  to  Judah  (5).     That  portion,  too,  of  the  tribe  of  Dan  which  dwelt  in 


386  THE   DEVELOPMENT   OF  THE  THEOCRACY.  [§  170. 

their  original  lot,  Josh.  xix.  40  sqq.,  between  Benjamin,  Judah,  and  Ephraim, 
belonged  to  Judah.  A  few  Danite  cities  are  mentioned,  2  Chron.  xi.  10,  xxviii. 
18,  as  pertaining  to  the  kingdom  of  Judah  ;  but  since  this  tribe  dwelt  partly  in 
the  north,  it  may  nevertheless  be  reckoned  among  the  ten.  Thus  Rehoboam's 
army  may  correctly  be  spoken  of,  1  Kings  xii.  23,  as  "all  the  house  of  Judah 
and  Benjamin,  and  the  rest  of  the  people."  Among  the  children  of  Israel  who 
dwelt  in  the  cities  of  Judah,  mentioned  ver.  17  as  Rehoboam's  subjects,  were 
probably  included  members  of  other  tribes  also.  And  when  to  these  are  added 
the  numerous  emigrations  from  the  northern  kingdom  into  that  of  Judah  in  suc- 
ceeding centuries  (comp.  2  Chron.  xv.  9),  it  may  well  be  said  that  among  the 
Jews  (D'l'iri'),  which  name  now  arose  in  the  southern  kingdom,  all  Israel  was 
represented.  The  disruption  of  Israel  was  from  this  time  irremediable  ;  in  a 
short  time,  not  reckoning  the  reigns  of  Ahab  and  Jehoshaphat  and  their  imme- 
diate successors,  the  separated  kingdoms  took  hostile  positions  with  respect 
to  each  other  (6),  and  at  last  consumed  their  strength  in  sanguinary  wars.  The 
external  glory  of  the  kingdom  was  at  an  end  ;  but  prophecy  never  ceased  to 
direct  the  expectation  of  the  nation  to  the  future  reunion  of  the  twelve  tribes 
under  one  head  of  the  house  of  David  (comp.  §  176,  conclusion,  §  224,  2). 

(1)  Ritter,  in  his  Erdlzunde,  xiv.  pp.  348-431,  gives  a  detailed  investigation  of 
Solomon's  trade  to  Ophir. 

(2)  See  on  this  subject  Ewald,  id.  iii.  p.  72  ;  Delitzsch,  id.  p.  713, 

(3)  The  lasting  stability  of  his  house,  i.e.  of  his  family,  was  also  promised  to 
Jeroboam  if  he  should  continue  faithful  to  the  Divine  law.  This  promise  was  accom- 
panied, however,  by  a  declaration,  1  Kings  xi.  39,  that  the  humiliation  of  David's 
house  was  but  temporary.  It  was  thus  shown  that  the  promise  of  perpetual  king- 
ship was  to  be  realized  in  the  dynasty  not  of  Jeroboam  but  of  David  (see  Keil  in 
he). 

(4)  This  circumstance  shows  the  respect  in  which  the  prophetic  office  was  still 
held  by  the  people,  although  its  public  agency  had  for  a  long  period  been  inter- 
mitted. 

(5)  Comp.  Hengstenberg  in  his  commentary  on  Ps.  Ixxx.  Hupfeld's  interpreta- 
tion of  the  last  quoted  passage  is  very  unnatural,  when,  treating  of  Ps.  Ixxx., 
he  understands  by  the  one  tribe  Benjamin,  which  David's  house  was  to  retain  be- 
sides Judah.  There  is  no  authority  for  making  up  the  number  of  the  ten  tribes 
(as  Delitzsch  does  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Psalms),  by  counting  the  tribe  of 
Manasseh  as  two. 

(6)  That  the  two  kingdoms  subsequently,  perhaps  under  Uzziah,  were  on  more 
friendly  terms,  and  even  concluded  a  "league  of  brotherhood,"  is  a  notion  in- 
vented in  explanation  of  Zech.  ix.  13,  xi.  14  (see  e.g.  Bleek  in  the  Theol.  Studien 
und  Kritiken,  1852,  pp.  268  and  292),  and  without  foundation  in  the  historical 
narratives. 


§  I'^l.]  JEROBOAM    I.    TO    OMRI.  387 

THIRD  DIVISION. 

THE  KINGDOM  OF  THE  TEN  TRIBES. 

§171. 
Preliminary  Remarks. 

The  history  of  the  Northern  Mngdom,  called,  as  the  basis  of  the  nation,  the  king- 
dom of  Israel,  or,  after  its  chief  tribe,  that  of  Ephraim,  comes  chiefly  under  the  con- 
sideration of  biblical  theology,  as  exhibiting,  in  the  conflict  waged  against  the 
apostate  realm  by  the  prophetic  order,  the  powerful  agency  of  the  latter,  and  as 
manifesting,  in  the  whole  course  of  the  events  which  befell  it,  the  serious  nature 
of  Divine  retribution.  Nine  dynasties,  including  nineteen  kings  (not  reckoning 
Tibni,  1  Kings  xvi.  32),  succeeded  each  other  in  the  two  centuries  and  a  half 
during  which  the  kingdom  existed  (from  975  to  720  B.C.),  and  only  two,  those  of 
Omri  and  Jehu,  possessed  the  throne  for  any  length  of  time.  The  history  is  full 
of  conspiracies,  regicides,  and  civil  wars  ;  it  is  a  continuous  testimony  to  the  fact 
that,  when  once  the  divinely  appointed  path  is  forsaken,  sin  is  ever  producing 
fresh  sin,  and  that  the  punishment  of  one  crime  is  inflicted  by  another. 

The  history  may  be  best  divided  into  two  periods.  Tlie  extirpation  of  Omri's 
dynasty  by  Jehu,  after  his  elevation  to  the  throne  byEIisha,  forms  the  chief  turn- 
ing-point.  Under  Jehu's  dynasty,  the  kingdom,  which  was  hastening  to  its  de- 
struction, entered  upon  a  new  career  of  prosperity,  but  only  to  succumb  the  more 
speedily  to  its  final  doom. 

FIRST    PERIOD. 

PROM  JEROBOAM    I.    TO  THE    OVERTHROW   OF   THE    DYNASTY   OF   OMRI    (ACCORDING 
TO   THE   USUAL   CHRONOLOGY   975-884  B.C.) 

§172. 

Jeroioam  I.  to  Omri. 

Jeroboam  at  first  took  up  his  abode  at  Shechem,  the  ancient  capital  of  Ephraim. 
Subsequently,  however,  he  dwelt  at  Tirzah,  xiv.  17,  which  continued  to  be  the 
capital  under  his  immediate  successors,  xv.  21.  The  first  measure  taken  by 
Jeroboam  was  to  make  the  piolitical  separation  of  the  tribes  a  religiotis  schism,  by 
completing  the  breach  with  the  theocratic  institutions,  the  connection  of  his 
people  with  the  worship  at  Jerusalem  seeming  to  him  politically  dangerous.  In 
his  innovations,  however,  Jeroboam  followed  tradition.  He  erected  two  separate 
sanctuaries,  one  in  the  south  at  Bethel,  a  place  consecrated  by  ancient  memories. 
This  was  the  "  king's  chapel,"  as  it  is  called  Amos  vii.  13,  a  designation  which 
very  characteristically  expresses  the  fact,  that  in  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes 
the  politico-ecclesiastical  had  taken  the  place  of  the  theocratic  principle.  The 
other  sanctuary  was  erected  in  the  north  at  Dan,  where  image-worship  had  already 
existed  in  the  time  of  the  Judges  (Judg.   xviii.).     In  causing  Jehovah  to   be 


388  THE  DEVELOi*Ml!NT  OF  THE  THEOCRACY.        [§  172. 

worshipped  at  these  places  under  the  symbol  of  a  calf,  Jeroboam  returned  to  the 
image-worship  instituted  by  Aaron  in  the  wilderness,  as  is  shown  by  the  words  of 
1  Kings  xii.  28,  which  are  borrowed  from  Ex.  xxxii.  4.  Since,  however,  the  Holy 
One  of  Israel  was  thus  degraded  to  a  power  of  nature,  this  image-worship  was 
nothing  else  than  idolatry,  and  was  treated  as  such  by  the  projshets  (1).  A  similar 
worship  must  subsequently  have^  existed  in  Oilgal,  which  is  named  along  with 
Bethel,  Amos  iv.  4  (comp.  also  v.  5  ;  Hos.  iv.  15,  ix.  15,  xii.  12)  (2).  One  main 
obstacle  to  tlie  new  worship  was  formed  by  the  Levites  dwelling  among  the  ten 
tribes.  Jeroboam  therefore,  as  we  learn  from  2  Chron.  xi.  13  sqq.  (comp.  xiii.  9), 
drove  from  his  realm  the  Levites  and  priests  ;  and  these,  together  with  other  sub- 
jects of  the  northern  kingdom  who  refused  to  take  part  in  this  apostasy  from  the 
legitimate  worship,  departed  in  great  numbers  to  the  kingdom  of  Judah.  In  their 
place,  according  to  1  Kings  xii.  31  and  xiii.  33,  he  "  made  priests  out  of  the  whole 
people  (of  the  lowest  of  the  people,  A.V.)  who  were  not  of  the  sons  of  Levi ;  whoso- 
ever would,  he  consecrated  him, "-etc.,  comp.  2  Chron.  xiii.  9  (3).  The  moral  dis- 
order to  which  this  priesthood  of  the  northern  kingdom  fell  a  prey  is  shown  Hos.  iv. 
6  sqq.,  vi.  9.  Of  the  religious  ceremonies  introduced  by  Jeroboam,  we  are  only  told, 
1  Kings  xii.  32,  that  he  instituted  a  feast  corresponding  to  the  Feast  of  Taber- 
nacles, transferring  it  from  the  15th  of  the  seventh,  to  the  15th  of  the  eighth  month, 
(perhaps  out  of  regard  to  the  later  harvest  of  the  northern  districts.)  It  is,  how- 
ever, evident,  from  several  allusions  in  the  prophets  Amos  and  Hosea,  that  many 
Mosaic  forms  of  worship  were  practised  in  the  sanctuaries  of  the  northern  kingdom. 
For  though  the  date  of  these  prophets  is  more  than  a  century  later,  it  is  certain 
that  such  forms  of  Jehovistic  worship  as  existed  in  their  days  in  the  kingdom  of 
the  ten  tribes  could  not  have  been  introduced  subsequently  to  Jeroboam,  but 
must  have  been  handed  down  from  ancient  times  in  this  kingdom.  From  Hos. 
ii.  13,  compared  with  ix.  5  (v.  7),  Amos  v.  21,  viii.  5,  10,  we  see  that  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  Sabbaths,  new  moons,  and  festivals  still  continued  ;  from  iv.  5,  v.  22, 
that  the  different  kinds  of  Mosaic  sacrifices  were  in  use;  from  Hos.  iv.  7  sqq., 
that  the  priests  partook  of  the  sin-offerings  ;  while  Amos  iv.  4  contains  allusion  to 
the  tithes  of  the  third  year  (4). 

Jeroboam  had  rid  himself,  as  has  been  said,  of  the  priests  and  Levites  ;  but  the 
opposition  of  the  proi^hets,  those  watchmen  of  the  theocracy,  was  only  the  more 
determined.  Individual  prophets,  indeed,  when  they  found  that  Jehovism  con- 
tinued to  be  the  state  religion,  and  that  the  newly  introduced  image-worship 
maintained  several  of  the  ancient  legal  forms,  may  have  been  satisfied,  or,  like 
the  old  prophet  of  whom  we  read  1  Kings  xiii.  11  sqq.  (5),  have  been  silent  from 
fear.  But  after  the  arrival  of  the  prophet  from  Judah,  who,  according  to  ch.  xiii., 
prophesied  against  the  worship  at  Bethel,  and  warned  Jeroboam  in  vain,  Ahijah, 
the  same  prophet  who  had  foretold  his  elevation,  and  who  still  dwelt  at  Shiloh, 
pronounced  the  curse  of  God  against  him,  on  account  of  this  very  image-worship, 
and  predicted  the  extirpation  of  his  house,  as   near  at  hand,  1  Kings  xiv.  7  sqq. 

Nadab  the  son  of  Jeroboam  was  slain,  after  a  reign  of  two  years,  by  Baasha  ; 
but  as  (according  to  the  henceforth  constantly  recurring  expression),  he  walked  in 
the  ways  of  Jeroboam,  his  son  Elah,  in  accordance  with  the  curse  pronounced 
against  his  house  by  the  prophet  Jehu,  xvi.  1  sqq.,  fell  a  victim  to  a  conspiracy 
set  on  foot  by  Zimri  ;  and  this  was,  as  we  are  expressly  told  ver.  7,  designed  also 


§  172.]  JEROBOAM   I.    TO   OMRI.  380 

as  a  punishment  for  the  slaughter  of  the  house  of  Jeroboam  by  Baasha.  For  it  is 
the  doctrine  of  prophetism,  that  even  a  deed  accomplished  in  conformity  with  the 
Divine  counsel,  if  not  performed  for  the  sake  of  God  and  with  full  submission  to 
His  will,  falls  back  upon  its  author,  and  is  condemned  in  him.  Zimri,  the 
assassin  of  Elah,  having,  after  a  reign  of  seven  days,  perished  in  the  flames  of 
his  palace,  a  division  of  the  kingdom  seemed  imminent,  one  part  of  the  people 
adhering  to  Tibni,  the  other  to  Omri.  The  latter,  however,  succeeded  in  get- 
ting the  upper  hand,  and  the  dynasty  raised  to  the  throne  in  him  (929  B.C.) 
possessed  it  for  more  than  forty  years. 

(1)  [Comp.  Kautzsch,  art.  "Jeroboam  I."  inHerzog,  2d.  ed.  vi.  p.  534  sqq.  and 
Baudissin,  "  Kalb,  goldenes,"  ib.  vii.  395  sqq.;  Reuss,  §  186  ;  Duhm,  p.  44  sqq. 
That  Jeroboam  in  setting  up  the  golden  calf  introduced  nothing  that  was  abso- 
lutely new  in  Israel  is  admitted.  Most  recent  writers  agree  also  that  in  this  he 
adopted  not  an  Egyptian  but  an  old  Semitic  form  of  worship.  But  it  is  a  different 
question,  whether  the  calf  worship  can  be  properly  represented  as  a  worship  which 
was  legal  from  the  time  of  Moses,  as  Schultz  is  inclined  to  think  (comp.  e.g. 
p.  316  sq.  and  143),  and  which  Duhm  decidedly  favors.  They  both  lean  to  the 
theory  that  the  temple  gave  offence  by  the  contrast  betw^een  the  new  house  of 
God  with  its  foreign  splendor,  and  the  old  simplicity  of  worship  (Schultz,  p.  384), 
and  Duhm  sees  in  the  temple  a  leading  cause  of  the  division  of  the  kingdom  (p.  55), 
a  view  which  Baudissen  justly  characterizes  (in  the  art.  cited,  p.  399)  as  unhis- 
torical.  Duhm  makes  a  history  of  the  division  of  the  kingdom,  in  presenting  a 
view  diametrically  opposite  to  that  of  the  Scriptures.  That  the  bnilding  of  the 
temple  took  place  with  the  co-operation  of  Nathan,  that  there  is  no  trace  of  opposi- 
tion to  it  on  the  part  of  the  prophets,  that  Micah  (\v.  1,  and  Isaiah  ii.  21)predicts  the 
highest  glory  for  the  mountain  of  the  houte  of  Jehovah,  does  not  hinder  him  from 
asserting  that  jje(?j(?/e  and  prophets  "  knew  that  here  a  Pha?uician  temple  of  the 
sun  was  erected,  and  the  moral  and  religious  consciousness  of  both  declared  that 
to  the  view  of  religion  here  presented,  their  God,  Jahve,  could  never  be  reconciled 
(p.  52  sq).  This  is  Duhm's  idea  of  the  people  of  Israel,  in  the  face  and  eyes  of  the 
statement  of  the  Old  Testament.  And  yet  he  does  not  hesitate  to  make  it 
the  glory  of  this  people,  in  view  of  passages  like  1  K.  xix.  14,  "  that  they 
resented  the  introduction  of  Baal  and  Astarte  (under  Ahab)  as  an  intolerable 
innovation"  (p.  51).  His  own  statement  (p.  64)  also  refutes  his  view,  which  may 
be  seen  in  its  full  extent  in  his  remark  (p.  63)  that  the  prophet  Hosea  sees  in 
the  falling  away  of  the  Israelites  from  David  a  falling  away  from  Jehovah,  but  he 
(Duhm)  a  holding  fast  to  Jehovah.] 

(2)  In  2  Chron.  xi.  15,  the  setting  up  of  Seirim  (goats,  A.  V.  devils)  as  well  as 
calves  as  objects  of  worship,  is  ascribed  to  Jeroboam  ;  and  this  must  either  be 
understood  as  a  statement  that  this  form  of  idolatry  also  existed  at  that  time  in 
the  nation,  or  we  have  in  this  passage  a  rhetorical  expression  (so  Hengstenberg, 
Oenuineness  of  the  Pentateuch,  i.  p.  200  f.),  signifying  that  this  calf-worship 
was  no  better  than  Seirim-worship.  [Kleinert  (art.  "Jeroboam"  in  Riehm) 
explains  this  Egyptian  worship  from  the  Egyptian  connections  of  Jeroboam, 
while  Baudissen  (Studieti,  i.  p.  137  sq.)  holds  the  account  in  Chronicles  to  be 
unhistorical,  but  on  insufficient  grounds.  ] 

(3)  2  Chron.  xiii.  9  :  "Whosoever  cometh  to  consecrate  himself  with  a  young 
bullock  and  seven  rams,  the  same  may  be  a  priest  of  them  that  are  no  gods." 
The  passage  refers  to  some  enactment  akin  to  that  of  the  Mosaic  law  concerning 
the  priesthood. 

(4)  In  Amos  iv.  5  the  exclusion  of  leaven  is  alluded  to,  and  thank-offerings, 
free-will  offerings,  and,  v.  22,  burnt-offerings  and  meat-offerings  are  mentioned. 
On  iv.  4  see  §  136,  note  3.  [On  Hos.  iv.  8  comp.  §  137,  note  1,  and  Steiner-Hitzig  in 
his  Comment.,  where  Hi^cpn  is  taken  as  meaning  sin-offering,  whence  it  follows 
"  that  Hosea  was  acquainted  with  sacrifice  in  the  form  of  sin-offering,  and  that 


.^90  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  THEOCKACT.         [§  1*3. 

tlierefore  the  latter  does  not  owe  its  existence  to  the  post-exilic  legislation."] 
What  is  said  in  the  text  is  of  the  greatest  importance  with  respect  to  the  criticism 
of  the  Mosaic  legislation.  Undoubtedly  none  of  these  institutions  would  have 
been  imported  from  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  unless  the  consecration  of  a  high 
antiquity  had  rested  upon  them.  And  how  much  further  would  not  Jeroboam 
have  gone  in  separating  his  people  from  the  religious  institutions  of  Jerusalem,  if 
these  had  been  of  as  recent  origin  as  the  opinion  of  many  moderns  would  make 
them? 

(5)  See  the  explanation  of  this  narrative  in  Hengstenberg's  Genuineness  of  the 
Pentateuch,  i.  p.  187  f.  As  little  can  it  be  doubted  that  the  calf-worship  also  had 
subsequently  its  prophets.  But  when  Eichhorn  goes  so  far  as  to  assert  (Allg. 
BiM.fai'hibl.  Lit.  iii.  p.  195)  that  the  prophets  of  Israel  did  not  oppose  the 
image- worship  at  Dan  and  Bethel,  and  Vatke  {Religion  des  A.T.  p.  421)  thinks 
that  it  can  by  no  means  be  proved  tliat  the  prophets  of  Israel  were  zealous  for 
Jehovah  as  Him  who  was  worshi{)ped  in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  they  simply 
Ignore  the  facts  of  history  (cnmp.  on  this  point  Heugstenberg,  id.  I.  p.  182  sqq.), 
also  art.  "  Prophetenthum  des  A.  T."  in  Herzog. 

§  17;]. 

The  Dynasty  of  Omri. 

Under  Omri,  the  royal  residence  was  transferred  from  Tirzah  to  the  city  of 
Samaria,  of  which  lie  was  the  builder,  1  Kings  xvi.  24.  This  well-situated  city, 
which  shortly  vied  in  prosperity  with  Jerusalem,  continued — though  Omri's 
immediate  successor  seems  to  have  dwelt  more  in  Jezreel — to  be  from  this  time 
the  capital  of  the  kingdom  (see  xviii.  46,  xxi.  1  ;  2  Kings  ix.  15),  which  was  now 
also  called  after  it,  the  "kingdom  of  Samaria."  Ovaxi's policy  vf as  evidently 
directed  toward  obtaining  peace  for  his  kingdom,  by  the  cultivation  of  friendly 
relations,  not  only  with  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  but  also  with  other  neighboring 
states.  Peace  seems  to  have  been  concluded,  by  the  sacrifice  of  certain  Israelitish 
towns  (see  the  supplementary  remark,  1  Kings  xx.  34),  with  Damascene  Syria, 
which,  under  the  dynasty  of  the  Hadads,  had  become,  as  Israel  had  already 
experienced  under  Baasha,  a  formidable  power.  The  marriage  of  Omri's  son,  the 
weak  Ahab,  with  the  Phoenician  princess  Jezebel,  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  above- 
named  political  motive.  By  the  latter,  however,  who  was  a  woman  of  an  ener- 
getic spirit,  an  alteration  for  the  worse  was  introduced  into  the  kingdom  after 
Ahab  had  ascended  the  throne.  Hitherto  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  though  in  an 
idolatrous  form,  had  still  been  the  national  religion  ;  but  now  the  worship  of  Baal 
and  Ashera  was,  at  the  instigation  of  the  queen,  set  up  in  its  stead,  a  temple 
built  for  Baal  in  Samaria  itself  (xvi.  32  sq.),  .  and  (see  especially  xviii.  19)  a  vast 
number  of  the  prophets  of  Baal  and  Ashera  maintained  among  the  people. 
Against  the  prophets  of  Jehovah,  moreover,  who  must  at  that  time  have  been 
numerous,  a  sanguinary  persecution  arose  (vers.  4,  13),  and  they  were  put  to 
death  whenever  the  queen  could  lay  hands  on  them.  Under  these  circumstances 
the  people  remained  passive  :  they  halted  between  two  opinions,  as  Elijah  ex- 
pressed it,  ver.  21,  i.e.  they  thought  the  worship  of  .Jehovah  and  Baal  compatible. 
At  this  period  the  conflict  with  triumphant  heathenism  was  waged  by  the  indi- 
vidual in  whom  was  reflected  the  full  glory  of  Old  Testament  prophetship,  viz. 
Elijah  the  Tishbite,  "the  Prophet  of  Fire,  whose  word  burnt  like  a  torch"  (as  the 
son  of  Sirach  describes  him,  xlviii.  1),  and  whose  very  name  "Jehovah  is  my 


§  173.]  THE    DYNASTY   OF   OMRl.  3()1 

God,"  tcstitied  against  the  apostiite  and  irresolute  race.  Opposing  singly  the 
royal  power  (1  Kings  xviii.  22),  while  other  prophets  were  concealing  themselves, 
but  supported  in  this  isolation  by  the  certainty  of  being  the  instrument  of  the 
living  God,  he  undertook  to  destroy  with  one  stroke  the  bulwarks  of  idolatry,  by 
slaughtering  the  prophets  of  Baal  on  Mount  Carmel,  where  the  true  God  had  borne 
testimony  to  His  prophet  (ver.  21  sqq.)  The  dejection,  however,  of  the  zealous 
prophet  was  put  to  shame,  when,  in  a  night-vision  on  Sinai,  God,  who  drew  near 
to  him  not  in  the  storm,  not  in  the  earthquake,  not  in  the  fire,  but  in  a  still  small 
voice,  reminded  him  of  the  Divine  patience,  pointed  him,  while  he  thought  him- 
self the  Lord's  only  worshipper,  to  the  seven  thousand  hidden  ones  who  had  not 
bowed  the  knee  to  Baal,  and  at  the  same  time  revealed  to  him,  by  the  command 
to  anoint  Hazael  to  be  king  over  Syria,  and  Jehu  to  be  king  over  Israel,  the 
judgment  which,  though  it  tarries,  at  last  surely  overtakes  offenders  (ch.  xix.). 
The  appointment  of  Hazael  to  be  king  of  Syria — a  case  in  which  the  prophetic 
agency  was  exerted  in  foreign  politics — did  not,  however,  take  place  till  later  ; 
and  Jehu's  elevation  was  effected  by  Elisha,  who  was  appointed  by  the  Divine 
command  to  succeed  Elijah  (1).  After  the  vigorous  measures  of  Elijah,  the 
jirophets  again  made  their  apjiearance  in  considerable  numbers,  and  must  (see  1 
Kings  XX.  13,  28)  have  been  suffered  to  dwell  unmolested  in  Samaria.  They 
openly  held  comrauuication  with  the  king,  in  whose  case  the  occurrence  on  Carmel 
had  evidently  not  been  without  effect,  and  who  received  fresh  proofs  of  the  power 
of  the  true  God  in  the  victories  granted  him  over  the  Syrians  in  accordance  with 
the  prophetic  word,  and  afterward  stern  rebukes  for  his  foolish  and  vacillating 
conduct  to  the  conquered  Benhadad  (ch.  xx.).  Already,  however,  a  multitude  of 
false pj'ophets  had  arisen,  wlio  spoke  only  such  things  as  the  king  would  like  to 
hear  ;  comp.  the  narrative  in  ch.  xxii.,  where  the  single  testimony  to  truth  of 
Michaiah,  the  son  of  Imlah,  is  opposed  to  the  false  predictions  of  four  hundred 
prophets  (2).  After  the  death  of  Ahab,  who  perished,  according  to  the  word  of 
Michaiah  (comp.  §  200),  in  an  unsuccessful  battle  against  the  Syrians,  his  son 
Ahaziah  ascended  the  throne,  walking  during  his  short  reign  in  the  ways  of  his 
mother  Jezebel,  from  which  his  brother  and  successor  Jehoram  somewhat  deviated. 

(1)  The  many  miracles  which  appear  in  the  history  of  Elijah  and  his  successor 
Elisha  are  peculiar,  no  miracles  being  ordinarily  attributed  to  the  prophets  of  the 
Old  Testament.  Here,  too,  as  well  as  at  the  exodus  from  Egypt,  it  appears  that 
(as  pointed  out,  §  G3)  the  agency  of  miracles  was  chiefly  employed  when  the  point 
at  issue  was  to  prove  the  existence  of  the  living  God,  as  against  the  worshippers 
of  the  false  gods.  [Comp.  also  on  this  point  the  remarks  inOrelli's  art.  "Elia" 
in  Herzog,  2d  ed.  iv.  p.  169.] 

(2)  That  these  400  were  not  the  prophets  of  Ashera  (A.  V.  of  the  groves)  of 
1  Kings  xviii.  19,  whom  Elijah  did  not  cause  to  be  slain,  nor  heathen  prophets 
at  all,  is  evident  from  xxii.  7,  24.  They  were  more  probably  connected  wdth  the 
image-worship  at  Bethel. 


392  THE   DEVELOPMENT   OF  THE  THEOCRACY.  [§  174. 


§174. 

Schools  of  the  Prophets^  and  Characteristics  of  the  Prophet  ism  of  the  Period.     Fall  of 
Jehoram.     The  Rechabites. 

The  scliools  of  the  prophets  are  now  ngain  mentioned  (1),  though  their  historical 
connection  with  the  association  of  prophets  in  the  time  of  Samuel  cannot  be 
proved.  It  is  probable  that  they  were  revived  by  Elijah,  for  the  purpose  of  pro- 
viding a  kind  of  religious  fulcrum  for  the  people  who  were  cut  off  from  the  law- 
ful sanctuary  and  worship  at  Jerusalem,  and  of  raising  up  men  who  would 
labor  for  the  quickening  of  their  spiritual  life.  Not  less  than  three  of  these 
institutions  are  found  within  a  tolerably  limited  area,  and  at  the  very  head-quai- 
ters  of  idolatry,  viz.  at  Bethel  (2  Kings  ii.  3),  Jericho  (ver.  5),  and  Oilgal  (iv.  38), 
— the  latter  being  afterwards,  for  want  of  room,  transferred  to  the  Jordan  tialley 
(vi.  1  sq.).  From  the  last-named  passage,  as  well  as  from  ii.  7,  16  sq., — in  each 
of  which  fifty  sons  of  the  prophets  are  mentioned, — and  iv.  43,  a  numerous  at- 
tendance at  these  institutions  may  be  inferred.  About  one  hundred  sons  of  the 
prophets  sat  before  Elisha  at  Gilgal,  and  their  number  at  Jericho  could  hardly 
have  been  less.  The  name  D'5<'?J  " J3,  sons  of  the  prophets,  which  is  not  used  of  the 
association  of  prophets  under  Samuel,  but  first  appears  1  Kings  xx.  35,  points  to 
an  educational  relation  (3).  Eichhorn's  explanation,  which  makes  them  sons  prop- 
erly speaking  of  prophets,  is  erroneous,  for  it  is  obvious  that  the  prophetic  ofiice 
was  not  hereditary  (3).  There  were,  as  is  proved  especially  by  the  expression  *^i!J, 
2  Kings  ix.  4,  younger  people  among  them  ;  but  besides  these,  as  the  narrative 
iv.  1  shows,  married  men,  who  probably  (see  the  expositors  on  the  passage) 
had  their  separate  households  ;  while  the  others,  on  the  contrary,  took  their 
meals  in  common,  iv.  38  sqq.  From  these  communities  the  prophets  seem  to 
have  traversed  the  country,  for  the  purpose  of  exercising  their  ministry  among 
the  people.  The  example,  however,  of  Elisha,  who,  according  to  ii.  25,  iv.  35, 
must  have  dwelt — perhaps  like  a  hermit  in  a  cave — for  a  long  time  upon  Carmel, 
and  subsequently,  according  to  v.  9,  vi.  33,  lived  in  his  own  house  in  Samaria, 
shows  that  they  might  also  permanently  take  up  their  abode  away  from  these  in- 
stitutions. From  what  has  already  been  said,  it  is  also  evident  that  membership 
iu  these  schools  of  the  prophets  imposed  no  obligation  to  celibacy.  For  the  rest, 
their  mode  of  life  would  certainly  correspond  with  the  gravity  of  their  vocation. 
Even  their  external  appearance  was  to  announce  their  opposition  to  worldly  con- 
formity. For  while  Samuel,  according  to  1  Sam.  xv.  37,  wore  the  'V."^,  which 
brought  to  mind  the  official  robes  of  the  high  priest,  Elisha  wore,  according  to  2 
Kings  i.  7  sq.,  a  rough  mantle  of  sheep's  or  goat's  skin  or  camel's  hair,  and  a 
simple,  unornamented  leathern  girdle.  Henceforth  the  hairy  mantle  seems  to 
have  been  a  mark  of  the  prophetic  vocation  (comp.  Isa.  xx.  2,  according  to  which 
Isaiah  wore  sackcloth  like  a  mourner,  Zech.  xiii.  4,  Heb.  xi.  37,  and  what  is  said 
of  the  raiment  of  John  the  Baptist,  Matt.  iii.  4,  xi.  8).  Hence  Elijah,  when  he 
called  Elisha  to  be  his  successor,  cast  his  mantle  upon  him  (1  Kings  xix.  19), — 
a  symbolical  action,  analogous  to  the  investiture  of  priests  with  their  office,  which 
is  nowhere  else  mentioned.  Ordinarily  there  seems  to  have  been  no  special  cere- 
mony for  consecrating  prophets  to  their  office.     Anointing  (with  oil)  is  indeed 


§  174.]  SCHOOLS    OF   THE    PROPHETS,   ETC.  393 

mentioned  1  Kings  xix.  16,  but  seems  to  have  been  omitted  even  in  the  case  of 
Elisha  (4).  The  succession  to  tlie  prophetic  oihce  was  not  connected  with  any 
legal  ceremony,  nor  dependent  on  human  appointment,  but  is  said  to  have  rested 
solely  on  the  direct  call  and  consecration  of  God,  Amos  vii.  15,  Isa.  vi.,  Jer.  i., 
Ezek.  i.  Elisha  w  as  indeed  called  by  Elijah,  but  this  was  in  virtue  of  a  Divine  com- 
mand ;  and  when  Elisha  entreated  his  master  that  he  might  be  endowed  with  a 
double  portion  of  his  spirit  above  the  other  disciples  of  the  prophet, — in  other 
words,  that  he  might  receive  the  first-born's  share  of  the  spiritual  inheritance, 
for  so  must  the  passage  2  Kings  ii.  9  be  understood, — Elijah  intimated  that  the 
fulfilment  of  this  desire  was  not  in  his  power,  and  only  gave  him  a  sign  by  which 
he  might  recognize  that  God  had  granted  his  petition  (ver.  10)  (5). 

It  is  specially  worthy  of  remark,  that  these  schools  of  the  prophets  served  the 
people  of  the  northern  kingdom  as  a  siibstitute  for  the  legitimate  sanctuary.  From 
3  Kings  iv.  23,  it  may  be  inferred  that  the  pious  betook  themselves,  on  the  new 
moons  and  Sabbaths,  to  the  schools  of  the  prophets  ;  nay,  from  the  mention  of  the 
offering  of  first-fruits  of  barley  loaves  and  new-  corn,  ver.  42,  it  may  be  presumed 
that  there  were  some  who  brought  to  the  prophets  the  dues  prescribed  in  the  law 
(for  the  sanctuary).  With  regard  to  maintenance,  the  prophets  seem  in  general 
to  have  been  dependent  upon  voluntary  contributions  (6).  Considering  the  great 
respect  in  which  they  were  held  by  the  people  (comp.  e.g.  the  narrative  iv.  8  sqq.), 
though  the  worldly  regarded  them  as  mad,  ix.  11,  they  could  not  easily  have 
lacked  support.  For  this  reason,  too,  it  would  the  more  frequently  happen  that, 
after  the  persecution  of  the  prophets  had  ceased,  worthless  babblers  would  as- 
sume the  prophetic  habit  from  covetousness,  as  we  see  to  have  been  the  case  from 
the  narrative  1  Kings  xxii.  Amos  (vii.  12  sqq.)  points  to  such  a  degenerate  kind 
of  prophetship,  when,  in  reply  to  the  scornful  admonition  of  the  priest  in  Bethel, 
to  get  fed  for  his  prophecy  in  the  land  of  Judah,  he  disclaims  the  honor  of  being 
taken  for  a  prophet  {i.e.  one  of  the  company  of  prophets)  or  the  son  of  a  prophet 
{i.e.  a  disciple  of  the  prophets).  In  this  passage,  which  is  of  the  date  of  Jeroboam 
II.,  we  meet  for  the  last  time  with  the  expression  ^'^l^ll)  and  consequently  with 
the  last  trace  of  the  schools  of  the  prophets  (7).— It  was  from  a  school  of  the 
prophets  that  the  overthroio  of  the  dynasty  of  Omri  proceeded.  While  king  Jeho- 
ram  lay  sick  at  Jezreel,  in  consequence  of  a  wound  received  in  battle  against  the 
Syrians,  Elisha,  to  whom  Elijah  had  bequeathed  the  commission  entrusted  to 
him  1  Kings  xix.  16,  sent  one  of  the  sons  of  the  prophets  to  anoint  Jehu,  a 
captain  of  the  host  in  the  besieging  army  before  Ramoth-Gilead,  king  over  Israel, 
and  to  charge  him  with  the  execution  of  the  curse  pronounced  by  Elijah  on  the 
house  of  Ahab  (xxi.  21-29).  Jezreel  was  immediately  surprised  by  Jehu,  with 
whom  his  comrades  combined  ;  Jehoram,  his  mother  Jezebel,  and  the  whole 
house  of  Ahab  were  slain  ;  and  the  worship  of  Baal  soon  after  extirpated  at  one 
blow,  2  Kings  ix.  sq.,  the  prophethood  thus  triumphing  over  the  apostate  king- 
dom. In  this  work  assistance  was  afforded  to  Jehu  by  Jehonadab  the  son  of  Re- 
chab,  2  Kings  x.  15,  23,  who  is  also  known,  from  Jer.  xxxv.  6,  as  the  founder  of 
the  Rechabites,  a  kind  of  nomadic  ascetics,  belonging,  according  to  1  Chron.  ii. 
55,  to  the  Kenites,  who  from  the  time  of  Moses  had  enjoyed  the  rights  of  hos- 
pitality in  Israel,  and  must,  according  to  the  context  of  the  passage  in  Chronicles, 
have  been  incorporated  into  a  nnDU/p  of  the  tribe  of  Judah.     According  to  the 


394  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  THEOCRACY.         [§  174. 

statement  of  Jeremiah,  tlie  Rechabites  were  bound  to  sow  no  seed,  to  plant  no 
vineyards,  and  to  drink  no  wine.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  same  particulars  are 
stated  to  have  constituted  the  v6nog  of  the  Nabataeans  by  Diodor.  Sic.  xix.  94. 
Diodorus  declares  the  purpose  of  this  prohibition  to  have  been  the  maintenance 
of  their  independence.  In  the  case  of  Jehonadab,  however,  who  appears  before 
us  as  zealous  for  the  Lord,  a  religious  motive  must  undoubtedly  be  assumed  ; 
he  probably  desired,  by  the  commands  which  lie  imposed  upon  his  descendants,  to 
preserve  their  lives  from  the  moral  and  religious  corruption  of  town  civilization. 
The  prohibition  of  cultivating  the  vine,  the  use  of  whose  produce  was  forbidden 
them,  must  probably  be  referred  to  the  fact  that  this  plant  belongs  to  a  state  of 
civilization.  The  now  current  notion  that  the  Rechabites  were  connected  with 
Nazaritism  may  be  correct,  but  there  is  no  authority  for  regarding  them  as  Naz- 
arites  properly  speaking.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that,  according  to  the  passage 
in  Chronicles,  families  of  Sopherim  (writers  or  scribes)  are  said  to  have  arisen 
among  the  race  of  Kenites,  descended  from  an  ancestor  named  Hamath,  to  which 
the  Rechabites  also  belonged. 

(1)  The  schools  of  the  prophets  are  first  expressly  mentioned  under  Jehoram, 
while  the  name  of  "sons  of  the  prophets,"  given  to  members  of  these  schools, 
already  appears  in  the  history  of  Ahab  (1  Kings  xx.  35). 

(3)  The  designation,  disciples  of  wisdom,  in  Proverbs  and  Ecclesiastes,  is  analo- 
gous. 

(3)  Only  one,  and  that  an  older  example,  is  found  of  a  son  succeeding  his  father 
in  the  prophetic  office,  viz.  that  of  Jehu  the  son  of  Hanani  (1  Kings  xvi.  1).  The 
fact  that  the  sons  of  the  prophets  are  here  and  there  called  prophets  (xx.  38,  41  ;  2 
Kings  ix.  4),  and  that  in  1  Kings  xx.  35  sqq.  a  son  of  the  prophets  appears,  in 
virtue  of  "  the  word  of  the  Lord"  to  him,  to  have  exercised  independent  prophetic 
authority,  certainly  shows  that  the  distinction  between  prophets  and  sons  of  the 
prophets  was  a  fluctuating  one,  but  does  not  authorize  us  entirely  to  deny  it. 

(4)  Isa.  Ixi.  1  proves  nothing  in  favor  of  the  anointing  of  prophets,  the  expres- 
sion being  used  figuratively.  Hence  the  traditionary  tenet  found  in  many  works, 
that  kings,  priests,  and  prophets  were  anointed,  is,  so  far  as  the  last  particular  is 
concerned,  incorrect. 

(5)  Accordingly,  when  Elisha  proved  himself  the  inheritor  of  the  spirit  of 
Elijah,  he  received  the  respectful  homage  of  the  sons  of  the  prophets,  2  Kings  ii. 
15.  Of  the  kind  of  instruction  given  in  the  schools  of  the  prophets  we  are  told 
nothing ;  the  discipline  would  tend  above  all  things  to  inculcate  unreserved 
obedience  to  the  Divine  word  (when  it  proved  itself  to  be  such),  and  unconditional 
surrender  to  the  Divine  call.  How  strict  the  obedience  required  of  prophets  was, 
is  evident  from  1  Kings  xiii.  20  sqq.,  xx.  35  sqq.,  and  the  history  of  Jonah. 
Comp.  also  Jer.  i.  7,  xx.  7  sq.  ;  Ezek.  iii.  17  sqq. 

(G)  It  is  evident  from  1  Kmgs  xiv.  3  (comp.  1  Sam.  ix.  8)  that  presents  were 
offered  to  the  prophets  when  their  advice  was  sought ;  the  narrative  2  Kings  v. 
20-27,  and  especially  the  words  of  Elisha,  ver.  20,  show,  however,  the  unselfishness 
which  his  calling  imposed  upon  the  prophet,  and  how  he  was  obliged  to  avoid  all 
appearance  of  mercenary  service.  1  Kings  xiii.  IG  sqq.  also  refers  to  this 
particular. 

(7)  The  Second  Book  of  Kings  makes  no  mention  of  schools  of  the  prophets 
after  the  accession  of  Jel)u.  Their  cessation  is  probably  connected  with  the  turn 
taken  by  prophecy  in  the  northern  kingdom  after  the  death  of  Elisha  (see  §  175). 
IKonig  (i.  p.  48)  conjectures— it  is  not  susceptible  of  proof— that  "there  was  also 
after  Amos  a  secondary  reproducing  prophctliood,  wiiidi  worked  upon  tlie  thoughts 
uttered  by  the  iirimiiry  ])r()i)lu'tli()od,  givi;  tlicin  currency  in  poetry  and  music,  and 
kept  them  in  tlie  memory  of  the  nation, "  and  that  from  this  Iwdy  proceeded  the  later 


§  175.]  THE    DYNASTY    OF   JEHU.  395 

(false)  prophets,  who  appeared  contemporaneously  with  the  apostasj-  of  Israel, 
"  and  fancied  themselves  to  be  able  by  some  means  or  other  to  ascertain  the  will 
of  Jehovah  and  to  lead  the  nation  in  the  most  direct  way  to  prosperity."] 

SECOND   PERIOD. 
FROM  JEHU  TO   THE   OVERTHROVr    OP   THE   KINGDOM   OP   THE   TEN  TRIBES 

(884-720  B.C.). 

§  175. 

The  Dynasty  of  Jehu. 

Jehu's  dynasty  maintained  itself  on  the  throne  for  more  than  a  century,  a  longer 
period  than  that  of  any  other.  Jehu's  reformation  stopped  half-way.  The  wor- 
ship of  Baal  was  indeed  extirpated,  but  the  illegal  worship  at  Dan  and  Bethel, 
and  also  the  Ashera  (grove,  A.  V.)  at  Samaria,  were  left  unmolested  (2  Kings  xiii. 
6).  Hence  Jehu's  house  was,  according  to  the  prophetic  word,  2  Kings  x. 
30,  to  possess  the  throne  to  the  fourth  generation,  but  then  to  be  in  its  turn  con- 
demned, and  to  have  the  blood-guiltiness  of  extirpating  Omri's  dynasty  avenged 
upon  it  (see  Hos.  i.  4)  (1).  The  state  of  the  kingdom  under  Jehu,  and  still  more 
under  his  son  and  successor  Jehoahaz,  was  in  a  political  aspect  a  very  unfortunate 
one  ;  for  Hazael,  who  had  been  raised  according  to  prophecy  to  the  throne  of 
Damascus  as  a  Divine  scourge  to  Israel,  repeatedly  and  successfully  invaded  the 
land,  treating  with  especial  harshness  the  part  of  Palestine  east  of  the  Jordan 
(Amos  i.  3),  which  became  for  some  time  subject  to  the  kingdom  of  Damascus. 
During  this  period  of  distress,  the  opposition  of  the  prophets  was  withdrawn  ; 
nay,  when  the  kingdom  was  reduced  to  the  last  extremity,  it  was  by  the  mouth  of 
the  prophets  that  Divine  deliverance  was  once  more  announced,  the  dying  Elisha 
first  promising  to  the  dejected  Joash,  the  son  and  successor  of  Jehoahaz,  victory  over 
the  Syrians  (2  Kings  xiii.  14  sqq.),  and  JonahVtxQ  son  of  Amittai  subsequently  pre- 
dicting the  restoration  of  the  ancient  boundaries  of  the  kingdom  (xiv.  25)  (2). 
Joash  was  successful  in  his  wars  against  Damascus  and  Judah  ;  but  the  glory  of 
the  kingdom  was  still  further  enhanced  under  his  valiant  son  Jeroboam  II.  (825- 
784),  who  not  only  restored  the  ancient  limits  of  the  kingdom,  but  even  conquered 
a  portion  of  Syria.  External  success,  however,  effected  no  internal  change  ;  on 
the  contrary,  its  internal  corruption  continuing  to  increase,  it  was  during  the 
period  in  which,  to  human  eyes,  it  was  attaining  a  hitherto  unparalleled  prosperity, 
that  the  state,  together  with  its  royal  house,  was  hastening  toward  those  judg- 
ments which  the  prophets  Amos  and  Hosea  were  raised  up  under  Jeroboam  II.  to 
proclaim.  First,  it  was  the  shepherd  of  Tekoa  who  came  from  Judah  and  testi- 
fied to  the  tyrannical  nobles  of  Samaria,  revelling  in  proud  security,  and  to  the 
multitude  trusting  in  their  mistaken  and  hypocritical  piety,  the  approach  of  the 
day  of  the  Lord  (Amos  v.  10  sqq.,  vi.  1-6)  (3).  Afterward,  probably  toward  the 
end  of  Jeroboam  the  Second's  reign,  Hosea  appeared  ;  and  when  the  respite 
granted  by  the  prophetic  word,  2  Kings  x.  30,  to  the  house  of  Jehu  had  nearly 
expired,  he  announced  first  to  the  latter,  and  then  to  the  kingdom  of  Samaria  in 
general,  that  judgment  was  now  at  hand,  and  continued  his  testimony  during  the 
terrible  times  beginning  with  Jeroboam's  death. 


396  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  THEOCEACY.         [§  176. 

(1)  I  at  least  can  but  esteem  this  the  correct  explanation  of,  "I  will  avenge  the 
blood  of  Jezreel  upon  the  house  of  Jehu,"  Hos.  i.  4.  [Hitzig  refers  the  expression 
only  to  the  murder  of  Ahaziah  of  Judah  and  his  brothers,  and  to  the  massacre 
related  in  2  Kings  x,  11]. 

(2)  The  same  Jonah  of  whom  we  read  in  the  well-known  book  bearing  his  name. 
This  prophecy  is  no  longer  extant  ;  and  it  is  not  a  very  happy  supposition  on  the 
part  of  Hitzig,  that  Isa.  xv.  is  the  production  of  the  prophet  Jonah. 

(3)  There  was  no  lack  of  religious  zeal  among  the  multitudes.  Pilgrimages 
were  made  to  Bethel,  to  Gilgal,  nay,  even  to  Beersheba  in  the  south  (Amos  v.  5, 
comp.  with  viii.  14)  ;  sacrifices  were  offered,  tithes  paid,  and  public  calls  for  free- 
will offerings  made  (iv.  4  sq.)  ;  and  it  was  thought  that  the  Divine  protection 
might  be  boasted  of  (v.  14),  and  the  Divine  judgments,  the  approach  of  which 
the  prophet  announced,  be  scoffingly  invoked  (ver.  18),  because  religion  was  sup- 
posed to  be  in  a  flourishing  condition. 

§176. 
From  Zachariah  to  the  carrying  away  of  the  Ten  Tribes. 

The  struggle  'between  the  Eastern  and  Western  world,  the  first  object  of  which  was 
the  possession  of  Syria,  Phoenicia,  and  Palestine,  began  in  the  eighth  century  B.C., 
with  the  conflict  between  Egypt  and  Assyria.  Hence  Amos,  ch.  i.  sq.,  sees  the 
Divine  judgments  rolling  like  a  storm  over  all  these  countries,  and  settling  with 
threatening  violence  upon  the  kingdom  of  Samaria.  Assyria,  though  not  ex- 
pressly named  by  this  prophet,  vi.  14,  is  pointed  out  as  the  instrument  of  the 
Divine  chastisement.  After  the  death  of  Jeroboam,  dreadful  disorders  broke  out 
in  Samaria  ;  see  the  description  relating  thereto  in  Hos.  iv.  If  the  chronological 
statements  concerning  the  reigns  of  the  monarchs  of  both  kingdoms  have  been  cor- 
rectly transmitted,  an  interregnum  in  Samaria  of  from  ten  to  twelve  years'  dura- 
tion must  be  admitted.  A  comparison  of  several  passages  inHoseaand  the  Books 
of  Kings  shows  that  a  dissension  had  arisen  between  the  eastern  and  western  por- 
tions of  the  kingdom,  and  that  pretenders  to  the  crown  from  these  different  parts 
were  contending  with  each  other.  Zachariah  the  son  of  Jeroboam  fell  a  victim 
to  a  conspiracy  six  months  after  his  accession,  and  thus  was  fulfilled  the  doom 
prophesied  against  his  house.  Shallum,  the  murderer  of  Zachariah,  was  himself 
slain,  after  a  reign  of  one  month,  by  Menaliem  (771  B.C.),  2  Kings  xv.  13  sqq. 
The  horrors  of  these  days  are  depicted  by  Hosea,  ch.  vii.  (1).  Many  refer 
Zech.  xi.  8  to  this  period,  because  the  short  space  of  one  month  saw  three  kings  ; 
but  in  that  case  another  pretender  to  the  crown,  not  mentioned  in  the  historical 
books,  would  have  to  be  admitted  (2). 

A  decided  turn  was  now,  however,  given  to  affairs  ;  for  Menahem  smoothed  the 
way  for  Pul,  king  of  Assyria,  to  enter  the  country,  and  thus  laid  the  foundation 
of  Israel's  dependence  on  Assyria.  Whether,  as  is  the  most  natural  view  of 
2  Kings  XV.  19,  he  himself  called  in  the  assistance  of  that  monarch  for  the  purpose 
of  establishing  him  on  the  throne  amidst  the  strife  of  parties,  or  whether  it  was 
the  opposite  party  that  invoked  his  aid  (3),  Menahem  purchased  Pul's  assistance, 
in  confirming  liim  in  tlie  kingdom,  by  heavy  sacrifices.  This  was  the  first  stage 
of  the  threatened  judgment  (4).  Israel  had  now  placed  itself  upon  the  theatre  of 
universal  history,  but  only  that,  instead  of  being  chastised  by  lesser  and  neigh- 
boring nations,  it  miglit  be  visited  by  the  oppressions  of  those  universal  monarchies 


§  176. J      FllOM  ZACHARIAH  TO  THE  OVERTHROW  OF  THE  KINGDOM.         397 

which  were  chosen  to  be  the  instruments  of  Divine  judgments  and  then,  when 
they  had  subserved  the  Divine  purpose,  were  themselves  to  perish,  according  to  tliat 
law  of  the  Divine  government  described  especially  by  Isaiah,  ch.  x.  5.  In 
Samaria  was  henceforth  developed  that  unhappy  policy  whicli,  while  on  the  one 
hand  courting  the  Assyrians,  was  on  the  other  secretly  combining  with  Egypt  for 
the  purpose  of  throwing  off,  by  her  assistance,  the  Assyrian  yoke.  In  opposition 
to  such  diplomatic  intrigues,  the  pruj^hets  made  it  their  business  to  inculcate  a 
higher  policy,  by  a  consistent  assertion  of  the  theocratic  principle,  which  was 
simply  this,  that  Israel  should  never  court  the  protection  of  a  worldly  power,  but 
seek  assistance  from  God  alone,  whom  they  must,  however,  also  fear  as  the  just 
avenger  of  apostasy,  against  whom  no  earthly  help  could  defend  them  ;  while,  on 
the  other  hand,  if  they  had  once  entered  into  alliance  with  a  heathen  power,  they 
were  bound  conscientiously  to  observe  their  engagements,  and  could  under  no 
condition  expect  a  blessing  from  a  breach  of  faith  ;  comp.  as  chief  passages,  Hos, 
v.  13  sq.,  vii.  8-16,  viii.  9  sq.,  x.  4,  xii.  2.  Such  exhortations,  however,  found 
no  audience  ;  and  the  prophets  were  despised  and  persecuted  as  fools  (according 
to  the  correct  interpretation  of  Hos.  ix.  7  sq.  ;  see  e.g.  Umbreit  on  this  passage). 
It  was,  however,  no  longer  their  office  to  save  from  ruin  by  deeds  of  deliverance, 
such  as  former  prophets  of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  had  performed,  since 
the  extirpation  of  the  "  sinful  kingdom,"  as  it  is  called,  Amos  ix.  8,  was  irrev- 
ocably determined,  and  the  judgment  which  was  to  be  gradually  accomplished 
was  already  in  process.  All  that  could  now  be  effected  by  the  prophetic  word 
was  to  exhibit  the  misfortunes  with  which  the  kingdom  was  visited  in  the  light 
of  Divine  judgments,  to  rescue  by  an  urgent  call  to  repentance  all  who  would  let 
themselves  be  rescued  from  the  general  ruin,  and,  finally,  to  enlighten  the  faithful 
remnant  of  the  people  concerning  the  final  purpose  of  the  Divine  proceedings, 
by  directing  their  attention  to  the  redemption  already  dawning  behind  the  dark 
cloud  of  rejection.  With  such  testimony  does  Isaiah  as  well  as  Rosea  accompany 
the  history  of  the  ten  tribes  till  its  fall. 

The  coming  ruin  was  hastened  by  Pekah,  who,  after  slaying  Pekahiah  the  son  of 
Menahem,  ascended  the  throne  B.C.  759.  He  allied  himself  with  the  Damascene 
kingdom,  the  hereditary  enemy  of  Israel,  against  Judah,  probably  with  the  hope 
of  strengthening  himself,  by  the  overthrow  of  Judah  and  the  dethronement  of  the 
house  of  David,  against  the  encroaching  power  of  Assyria.  The  ancient  hatred 
of  Ephraim  toward  Judah,  which  had  so  frequently  during  the  last  two  centu- 
ries led  to  sanguinary  conflicts,  was  now  once  more  to  burst  forth  with  fury,  and 
to  hasten  the  destruction  of  Ephraim.  The  Assyrian  monarch  Tiglath-pileser, 
whose  assistance  had  been  invoked  by  Ahaz,  having  first  executed  against  Damas- 
cus the  judgment  predicted  by  Amos,  ch.  i.  3  sqq.,  took  the  provinces  east  of  the 
Jordan  and  the  northern  portions  of  those  west  of  this  river  (Galilee),  and  carried 
away  the  tribes  inhabiting  these  regions  into  the  interior  of  Asia,  about  740  b.c. 
(2  Kings  XV.  29).  This  was  the  second  stage  of  the  judgment.  Isaiah  (ix.  9)  de- 
scribes the  people  of  Samaria,  however,  as  receiving  all  such  Divine  corrections 
with  arrogance  and  presumption,  and  comforting  themselves  with  wicked  hopes 
of  better  times  (5).  Hoshea,  who  obtained  the  throne  by  conspiring  against 
and  slaying  Pekah,  and  who,  according  to  2  Kings  xvii.  2,  was  comparatively  a 
better   king,  became  tribiUary    to   the  Assyrian  king  Shahna»eser,   but  sought, 


398  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  THEOCRACY.         [§  176. 

by  concluding  an  alliance  with  So,  king  of  Egypt  (the  Sabakon  of  Herodotus), 
to  release  himself  from  this  dependence.  Shalmaneser,  who  was  then  occupied  in 
Hither  Asia,  immediately  marched  into  the  land  of  Israel.  Hoshea,  after  being, 
as  it  seems,  summoned  to  the  Assyrian  camp  to  account  for  his  conduct,  was  im- 
prisoned, and  Samaria  attacked.  But  an  heroic  resistance  must  have  been  made  in 
this  as  in  all  the  deadly  struggles  of  the  Israelites  ;  for  it  was  not  till  after  a  three 
years'  siege  that  it  was  taken,  and  "the  proud  crown  of  the  drunkards  of  Ephraim 
trodden  under  foot,"  Isa.  xxviii.  3  [not,  as  is  now  settled  by  the  cuneiform  inscrip- 
tions, by  Shalmaneser,  but  by  his  successor,  Sargon  (6),  mentioned  in  Isa.  xx.  1]. 
The  people  were  led  into  cajitivity  720  B.C.  (comp.  also  §  177),  and  thus  was  the 
judgment  accomplished  (comp.  the  description  of  this  catastrophe,  2  Kings  xvii.  7- 
33).  The  dwelling-places  assigned  to  the  exiles  were  situated  in  Media  and  the 
upper  provinces  of  Assyria  (ver.  G).  It  has  been  already  remarked  (§  170,'  note  7) 
(7)  that  the  continued  existence  of  the  ten  tribes  during  the  subsequent  centuries 
is  attested  by  1  Chron.  v.  26,  "  unto  this  day,"  and  Josephus  (Aiit.  xi.  5,  2)  ;  their 
restoration  is  also  expressly  foretold  by  the  prophets. 

(1)  Hos.  vii,  :  "It  is  the  king's  feast,  in  which  he  carouses  with  the  princes, 
who  deride  him  in  their  hearts,  for  the  flame  of  rebellion  already  glimmers  again 
in  secret.  All  night  the  baker  sleeps  ;  in  the  morning  it  (the  oven)  glows  like  a 
flaming  fire.  They  all  glow  like  an  oven,  and  devour  their  judges  :  all  their 
kings  fall ;  none  of  them  calls  upon  me,"  ver.  6  sq. 

(2)  It  need  hardly  be  remarked  that  np-i2p,  2  Kings  xv.  10,  cannot,  as  Ewald 
thinks,  conceal  a  name.     He  smote  him,  it  is  said,  "  before  the  people." 

(3)  According  to  another  view,  Pul  entered  the  country  because  Menahem  ad- 
hered to  the  Egyptian  party.  The  accounts  are  too  brief  to  enable  us  to  speak 
decidedly.  [According  to  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  the  connections  of  Israel 
with  Assyria  were  still  earlier.  According  to  them,  Ahab  in  alliance  with  the 
king  of  Syria  was  defeated  by  Shalmaneser  II.  of  Assyria  at  Karkar,  and  Jehu 
had  purchased  the  protection  of  this  monarch  by  gifts.  Comp.  Riehm,  art. 
"Ahab"  in  his  Handworterlmch  ;  Kleinert,  art.  "Jehu"  in  the  same  work,  and 
F.  W.  Schultz  in  Zockler,  i.  p.  277.] 

(4)  It  cannot  be  proved  from  1  Chron.  v.  26,  w^hich  is  appealed  to  in  this 
matter,  that,  as  some  suppose,  a  deportation  now  took  place. 

(5)  Isa.  ix.  10:  "If  the  bricks  have  fallen,  we  will  build  with  hewn  stones; 
if  the  mulberry  trees  are  cut  down,  we  will  cause  cedars  to  succeed  them."  Be- 
sides Hosea,  who  was  undoubtedly  a  citizen  of  the  northern  kingdom,  we  meet 
in  the  Old  Testament  with  another  prophet  who  exercised  his  ministry  at  this 
time  in  Samaria,  viz.  Oded,  who,  according  to  2  Chron.  xxviii.  9-15,  went  to 
meet  the  army  of  Pekah  as  it  was  returning  from  Judah  with  a  multitude  of 
captives,  and,  after  a  serious  expostulation,  effected  the  deliverance  and  restora- 
tion of  the  prisoners.  The  prophet  Nahum  also  probably  belonged,  at  least  by 
birth,  to  the  northern  kingdom. 

(6)  We  certainly  are  not  expressly  told  in  2  Kings  xvii.  3,  xviii.  9,  that  the 
king  who  conquered  Samaria  was  Shalmaneser,  but  the  context  leads  us  to  suppose 
it.  ["Tlie  two  apparently  conflicting  accounts,  that  of  the  Bible  on  the  one 
hand  and  of  the  inscriptions  on  the  other,  are  most  easily  reconciled  by  the  as- 
sumption that  the  final  and  actual  conqueror  of  the  city  was  certainly  Sargon  ; 
but  that  this  conquest  appeared  so  much  as  the  ultimate  result  of  the  three  years' 
siege  under  Shalmaneser,  tliat  in  the  tradition  of  the  Israelites  who  were  prox- 
imately affected,  not  the  final  conqueror  but  rather  the  tenacious  besieger, 
Shalmaneser,  was  regarded  as  having  stormed  the  capitol."  Schrader,  art. 
"  Salmanassar"  in  Riehm  ;  comp.  also  his  art.  "  Sargon"  in  the  same  work.] 

(7)  Compare  especially  the  essay  of  Wichelhaus,  "  Das  Exil  der  zehn  Stamm^ 
Israels,"  Zeitschr,  der  deutscheii  morgeid.  Qesellsch,  1851,  No,  4,  p.  467  sqq. 


§  177.]  OEIGIH    OF   THE   SAMARITANS.  399 

§  177. 

Origin  of  the  Samaritans  (1). 

In  place  of  the  Israelites  who  were  carried  into  exile,  colonies  from  central  Asia 
were,  according  to  2  Kings  xvii.  24,  planted  in  the  "depopulated  country  [as  is  now 
established  by  the  inscriptions,  by  Sargon.  On  the  other  hand,  in  Ezra  iv.  2  the  re- 
settlement of  Samaria  appears  as  the  work  of  Esar-haddon  (the  son  of  Sennacherib), 
but  this  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  this  monarch  also  sent  colonists  into  the  still 
sparsely  peopled  land,  as  his  own  inscriptions  testify]  (2),  These,  to  avert  the 
judgments  which  befell  them,  mingled  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  as  the  God  of  the 
land,  with  the  heathen  religions  they  had  brought  with  them  from  their  respective 
homes  (2  Kings  xvii.  25  sqq.).  Thus  arose  the  so-called  Samaritans  or  Cuthites, 
0'ri^3,  as  they  were  named  by  the  Jews,  from  Cuthah,  the  native  country  of  a  jjor- 
tion  of  them  (3).  Tico  views  are  held  with  respect  to  these  Samaritans.  According 
to  one,  they  were  not  a  purely  heathen  people,  but  a  mixed  race  arising  from  the 
intermarriage  of  the  new  colonists  with  the  remnant  of  the  ten  tribes  which  was  left 
in  the  land.  The  other  and  older  view,  that  the  Samaritans  proceeded  from 
wholly  heathen  races,  has  been  re-advocated  especially  by  Hengstenl^erg  {Genuine- 
ness  of  the  Pentateuch,  i.  p.  72  sqq.  (4).  It  is  certain  that  not  much  dependence 
can  be  placed  upon  the  assertions  of  their  Israelitish  descent  by  the  later  Samar- 
itans (see  e.g.  John  iv.  12),  since  at  one  time  they  affirmed,  at  another  time  de- 
nied it,  as  their  interests  required  (see  the  narratives  in  Josephus,  Ant.  xi.  8.  6 
and  xii.  5.  6)  ;  while  neither,  on  the  other  hand,  can  Jewish  accounts  be  trusted, 
the  hatred  of  the  Jews  for  the  Samaritans  furnishing  them  with  a  motive  for 
denying  all  kindred  with  the  latter.  The  Old  Testament  passages,  2  Kings  xvii. 
24  sqq.,  Ezra  iv.  2,  9  sq.,  favor  the  second  view.  In  the  first  of  these,  it  is  ev- 
ident from  ver.  27  that  at  all  events  the  Israelitish  joriesthood  had  been  entirely 
carried  oflE  ;  in  the  latter,  it  is  specially  noteworthy  that  the  Samaritans  do  not 
support  their  claim  to  a  share  in  the  new  temple  at  Jerusalem  by  asserting  their 
kinship  to  the  Jews.  On  the  other  hand,  it  must  certainly  be  admitted  that,  at 
least  after  the  destruction  of  Samaria,  a  considerable  Israelitish  population  must 
still  have  been  found  in  the  northern  country.  This  is  specially  shown  by 
2  Chron.  xxx.  ;  for  the  solemn  Passover  of  Hezekiah  there  mentioned  was  in  all 
probability  held,  not  (as  many  suppose)  in  the  beginning  of  his  reign,  but  after 
his  sixth  year,  and  therefore  after  the  destruction  of  Samaria  (5).  Of  this  pop- 
ulation, however,  it  must  also  be  admitted  that  it  was  carried  away  by  Esar-had- 
don, who  planted  the  colonists  in  the  country.  Nevertheless,  even  under  Josiah, 
who,  according  to  2  Chron.  xxxiv.,  destroyed  the  altars  and  images  still  existing 
in  the  northern  regions,  remnants  of  ]\Ianasseh,  Ephraim,  and  of  the  rest  of  Israel 
are  (ver.  9)  assumed,  and  the  men  from  Shechem,  Shiloh,  and  Samaria,  namtd 
in  Jer.  xli.  5  as  mourning  for  the  destruction  of  the  temple  of  Jerusalem,  were 
undoubtedly  Israelites.  Besides,  the  total  deportation  of  the  entire  population  of 
so  important  a  district  is  hardly  to  be  supposed  possible.  Thus  much  however,  is 
certain,  that  the  Israelitish  element  among  the  Samaritans,  even  reckoning  the 
subsequent  accession  of  Jews  to  their  numbers  (of  which  we  shall  speak  in  the 


400  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  THEOCRACY.         [§  178. 

5th  Division,  §  192),  must   by  no  means  be  computed  as  so  considerable  as  is 
generally  the  case  (6). 

(1)  Comp.   Kautzsch,  art.  "  Samaritaner"  in  Riehm. 

(2)  Comp.  Schrader,  art.  "  Asarhaddon"  and  "  Sargon"  in  Riehm. 

(3)  It  cannot  be  determined  with  certainty  whether  Cuthah  was,  as  Josephus 
says,  a  province  in  Persia,  or,  as  others  say,  a  town  in  Babylonia. 

(4)  Against  Heugstenberg,  see  Kalkar,  "Die  Samaritaner  ein  Mischvolk,"  in 
Pelt's  Theol.  Mitarbeiten,  1810,  iii.  p.  24  sqq. 

(o)  [Not  so  Delitzsch,  art.  "  Hiskia"  in  Herzog,  who  places  this  festival  in  the 
early  part  of  tlie  reign  of  Hezekiah.] 

(6)  [On  the  other  hand,  Kautzsch  assumes  that  the  Israelitish  element  among 
the  Samaritans  was  much  stronger  than  might  appear  from  2  K.  xvii.  24  sqq., 
since  only  thus  can  the  existence  of  a  population  so  similar  to  the  Israelites  be  ex- 
plained.] The  small  remnant  of  Samaritans  still  found  in  Nabulus  exhibit,  ac- 
cording to  the  assertion  of  travellers,  absolutely  no  approach  to  the  Jewish 
physiognomy  ;  compare  Ritter,  Urdkiinde,  xvi.  p.  647  sqq. 


FOUKTH  DIVISION. 

THE     KINGDOM     OF     JUDAH. 

§  178. 

Preliminary/  BemarTcs  and  Survey. 

The  history  of  the  hingdom  of  Judah  has  a  character  essentially  different  from  that 
of  the  hingdom  of  Israel.  Though  much  smaller,  especially  after  Idumea,  the  only 
one  of  the  mountainous  districts  which  at  the  disruption  fell  to  the  share  of  Judah, 
had  gained  its  independence,  it  was  still  superior  to  the  kingdom  of  Israel  in 
internal  strength.  This  resulted  partly  from  its  possession  of  the  genuine  sanctu- 
ary with  its  legitimate  worship,  its  influential  priesthood,  and  Levitical  orders  ; 
and  partly  from  its  royal  house,  which,  unlike  most  of  the  dynasties  of  the 
neighboring  kingdom,  had  not  been  raised  to  th;  throne  by  revolution,  but 
possessed  the  sanction  of  legitimacy  and  a  settled  succession  (1),  and  was  especially 
consecrated  by  the  memory  of  its  illustrious  ancestor  David,  and  the  Divine 
promises  vouchsafed  to  his  race.  Moreover,  among  the  nineteen  monarchs  (of 
course  not  counting  Athaliah)  who  occupied  the  throne  387  years,  from  Rehoboam 
till  the  fall  of  the  state,  there  were  at  least  some  individuals  distinguished  for 
high  administrative  talents,  in  whom  the  ideal  of  the  theocratic  kingship  was  re- 
vived, such  as  Jehoshaphat,  Hezekiah,  Josiah.  Thus  the  kingdom  gained  a 
moral  strength  that  prevented  the  wild  spirit  of  insurrection  and  discord,  by  which 
the  other  kingdom  was  disturbed,  from  attaining  anything  like  the  same  propor- 
tions. The  opposition,  indeed,  between  the  natural  inclinations  of  the  people 
and  the  moral  strictness  of  Jehovism  could  not  but  lead  to  conflicts  here  also  ; 
nay,  the  contrast  between  the  two  was  all  the  sharper,  because  a  syncretistic  in- 
termingling of  heathenism  and  Jehovism  could  not  be  so  easily  effected, — a 
circumstance  which  explains  the  fact,  that  when  the  former  did  get  the  upper 
luiud  in  Judah,  it  appeared  in  a  still  grosser  form  than  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel, 


§  178.]  PRELIMINARY    REMARKS    AND    SURVEY.  401 

By  reason,  however,  of  the  firm  foundation  whicli  the  continuance  of  the  legiti- 
mate theocratic  authorities  aft'orded  to  Jeliovism  in  the  state,  there  was  no  need 
of  bloody  revolutions  to  reinstate  the  latter  in  its  rights,  but  only  of  refm-mations, 
and  these  were  effected  not  so  much  by  the  energetic  efforts  of  the  prophets  as 
by  the  kings  themselves.  Besides,  since  the  preservation  of  the  theocratic  ordi- 
nances did  not  devolve  in  Judah  exclusively  upon  the  prophets,  their  position 
was  different  from  that  which  they  occui):ecl  iu  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes. 
At  times  tlieir  agency  was  exercised  in  perfect  harmony  with  that  of  the  two  other 
theocratic  powers  ;  and  reformations  of  worship  being  repeatedly  undertaken  by 
the  kings,  they  were  able  to  limit  themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the  word.  In 
tracing  the  history  of  the  prophetic  order,  a  distinction  has  been  sometimes  made 
between  the  prophetism  of  deed  and  icord  (3),— a  distinction  less  adapted  to  des- 
ignate two  different  periods  than  to  characterize  the  prophetship  in  Judah  in 
contradistinction  from  the  older  prophetship  of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes. 
The  prophets,  finding  in  Judah  the  basis  afforded  by  existing  theocratic  institu- 
tions, were  not  under  the  necessity  of  establishing  new  props  ;  and  there  is  no 
sort  of  evidence  that  schools  of  the  prophets,  or  associations  such  as  existed  in  the 
kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  were  organized  in  Judah.  The  Rabbins,  indeed  (3), 
represent  schools  of  the  prophets  as  existing  in  Judah  down  to  the  Babylonian 
captivity  ;  but  this  arises  from  a  confessedly  erroneous  interpretation  of  3  Kings 
xxii.  14,  where,  by  the  n^.t^p  {i.e.  the  lower  district  of  the  town)  in  which  the 
prophetess  Huldah  dwelt,  they  understand  a  place  of  instruction  (Targ.  KJSIIX  r\'5) 
in  the  neighborhood  of  the  temple.  In  the  historical  notices  of  the  kingdom  of 
Judah  we  meet  only  with  individual  prophets,  a  succession  of  wliom  continues,  with 
but  inconsiderable  gaps,  down  to  the  captivity,  and  it  was  only  around  eminent 
prophets  like  Isaiah  (comp.  viii.  16),  and  afterward  Jeremiah,  that  small  circles  of 
disciples  were  gathered,  in  whom  the  word  of  God  fell  upon  good  ground,  in  the 
midst  of  a  rebellious  nation,  and  was  transmitted  to  future  generations  (4), 

With  respect  to  the  course  of  events  in  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  a  cursory  glance 
presents  a  tolerably  uniform  alternation  of  apostasy  from  Jehovah  and  return  to 
Him.  Certain  kings  suffer  idolatry  to  spring  up  ;  this  finds  support  in  the  high 
places  existing  in  different  parts  of  the  country,  and  such  apostasy  is  followed 
by  punishment  in  the  calamities  which  then  overtake  the  nation.  Then  arises 
again  a  pious  king,  who  exerts  himself  to  keep  the  people  faithful  to  the  legiti- 
mate sanctuary,  and  vindicates  the  authority  of  the  legal  worship,  till  at  length, 
after  repeated  reformations,  the  apostasy  and  corruption  become  so  great,  that 
judgment  sets  in  without  intermission.  In  fact,  however,  the  conflict  between 
the  theocratic  principle  and  the  apostasy  of  the  people  passes  through  several 
characteristically  different  stages.  In  the  first  period,  extending  to  Ahaz,  heathen- 
ism, which  was  never  wholly  extirpated,  and  which  attained  under  some  kings  a 
temporary  supremacy,  appears  in  the  form  of  the  ancient  Canaanitish  deifica- 
tion of  nature  ;  the  prophets,  who  during  these  two  centuries  are  somewhat  in  the 
background,  exercise  their  ministry  during  this  period,  so  far  as  we  know  their 
history,  in  harmony  with  the  priesthood  ;  and  the  political  relations  of  the  kingdom 
do  not  extend  beyond  the  states  bordering  on  Palestine,  among  which  Egypt  at 
first  appears  as  especially  the  enemy  of  Judah.  In  the  second  period,  Judah,  on 
the  occasion  of  the  momentous  combination  of  Syria  and  Ephraim  (comp.  §  176), 


40^  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  THEOCRACY.         [§  178. 

appears  on  the  great  stage  of  universal  liistory,  and  is  drawn  into  that  conflict 
with  the  Assyrian  monarchy  in  which,  after  experiencing  terrible  reverses  and 
witnessing  the  destruction  of  the  kindred  nation,  it  was  miraculously  preserved 
by  Divine  interposition.  The  contest  against  the  worship  of  nature,  which,  in 
consequence  of  the  religious  influences  proceeding  from  central  Asia,  now  appears 
in  an  altered  form,  continues  ;  but  to  the  political  complications  of  the  age  is  add- 
ed the  opposition  of  the  prophets  to  the  false  policy  of  the  nation,  and  prophecy, 
enlarging  its  horizon  in  these  stirring  times,  rises  to  a  full  and  clear  perception  of 
the  world-wide  importance  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  Israel.  The  third  feriod  com- 
mences with  the  reformation  under  Josiah,  which,  after  idolatry  had  reached  its 
climax  under  Manasseh  and  Amon,  was  apparently  the  most  thorough.  This  ref- 
ormation was  not,  however,  capable  of  effecting  the  revival  of  the  deeply  fallen 
people,  and  produced  only  an  external  conformity  to  the  rites  of  religion.  Even 
in  earlier  times,  the  prophets  had  been  constrained  to  testify  against  a  dead  self- 
righteousness  and  an  empty  adherence  to  ceremonies  ;  but  an  utter  stagnation  of 
vital  religion,  in  which  the  priests  as  well  as  the  people  now  participated,  appears 
to  be  the  characteristic  phenomenon  of  the  period  ;  while,  after  the  death  of 
Josiah,  not  only  did  idolatry  revive,  but  a  fresh  field  was  opened  for  the  politi- 
cal agency  of  the  prophets,  by  the  conflict  between  the  decaying  kingdom  and 
the  Chaldtean  power.  This  period  closes  with  the  fall  of  the  state,  and  the  carrying 
of  the  people  to  Babylon.  During  the  first  period  we  meet  with  no  great  repre- 
sentative of  the  prophetship, — Joel,  who  moreover  belongs  to  a  period  free  from 
idolatry,  being  the  earliest  who  can  be  considered  such.  The  ministry  of  Isaiah 
forms  the  focus  of  the  second  period  ;  the  chief  prophet  of  the  third  is  Jeremiah. 

(1)  The  succession  to  the  throne  seems  to  have  been  generally  determined  ac- 
cording to  the  rights  of  primogeniture  (2  Chron.  xxi.  3),  although  exceptions 
occur.  It  is  said  of  Rehoboam  (3  Chron.  xi.  21  sq.),  that,  after  the  example  of 
David,  he  bestowed  the  throne  upon  the  son  of  his  favorite  wife  ;  and  Jehoahaz, 
although  the  younger  son  of  Josiah,  was  raised  to  the  throne  by  the  will  of  the 
people  (2  Kings  xxiii.  30).  It  is  to  be  presumed  that  a  regency  occurred  during 
the  minority  of  a  king.  The  Rabbins  appeal  in  support  of  this  to  Eccl.  x.  16  ; 
and  the  position  filled  by  Jehoiada  the  high  priest  with  respect  to  Joash  was  also 
of  this  nature,  3  Kings  xii.  3  (§  ISO).  The  queen  mother  seems  generally  to  have 
possessed  much  influence,  for  we  find  great  respect  shown  to  her.  The  king  bows 
himself  before  her  (1  Kings  ii.  19), — the  queen-consort,  on  the  contrary,  falling 
down  before  the  king,  i.  IG, --and  she  is  called  nyDJ,  queen,  kut.  k^.  1  Kings  xv. 
13  ;  2  Kings  x.  13  ;  Jer.  xiii.  18,  xxix.  2.  Hence,  on  the  accession  of  a  king, 
the  name  of  his  mother  is  mentioned,  1  Kings  xiv.  21,  xv.  2,  etc. 

(2)  Comp.  G.  Baur,  Der  Prophet  Amos  erklart^  p.  27sqq.,  etc. 

(3)  Comp.  Alting,  Historia  academiarum  hebr.  p.  243. 

(4)  We  meet  with  a  confidential  disciple  in  Baruch,  the  faithful  companion  of 
Jeremiah. 


§  179.]  REHOBOAM   TO   JEHOSHAPHAT.  403 

FIKST    PERIOD. 
FROM  BEHOBOAM   TO   AHAZ    (975-741  B.C.). 

§  179. 

Behoboam  to  Jehoshaphat. 

The  history  of  Judah  under  the  reign  of  its  first  two  kings,  Rehoboam  and 
Abijam,  or,  as  he  is  called  in  Chronicles,  Abijah,  offers  little  that  is  worthy  of 
notice.  External  misfortunes  were  added  to  the  internal  declension  occasioned 
by  the  spread  of  idolatry, — the  Egyptian  king  Shishak  (Sesonchis  among  Greek 
writers)  penetrating  as  far  as  Jerusalem,  which  he  took  in  spite  of  the  girdle  of 
fortresses  erected  by  Rehoboam  (1  Kings  xiv.  25  sqq.)  (1).  The  victory  gained 
over  Jeroboam  by  Abijah  (narrated  2  Chron.  xiii.)  (2)  afforded  no  adequate  com- 
pensation, nor  does  the  slight  extension  of  the  kingdom  by  tlie  three  districts 
taken  from  the  northern  kingdom  seem  to  have  been  permanent.  Then  followed 
thejii'st  reformation  under  Asa  (about  955  B.C.),  to  which  the  king  was  urged  by 
the  prophet  Azariah  the  son  of  Oded,  2  Chron.  xv.  1,  after  a  victory  over  the  Egypto- 
Ethiopian  king  Zerah  (3), — a  reformation  which  was  not  able  wholly  to  extir- 
pate idolatry,  because  it  did  not  succeed  in  penetrating  into  all  its  lurking-places. 
At  this  time  appeared  also  the  prophet  Hanani  (2  Chron.  xvi.  7  sqq.),  who  rebuked 
the  king,  because  in  his  war  with  Baasha  he  allied  himself  with  Damascus  instead  of 
depending  on  the  Divine  protection,  but  was  imprisoned  for  his  boldness.  Jehosh- 
aphat the  son  of  Asa,  one  of  the  best  rulers  of  the  house  of  David,  was  still  more 
zealous  for  the  establishment  of  the  theocratic  ordinances  (914-889).  He  organ- 
ized the  administration  of  justice,  xix.  5-11,  in  which  a  distinction  was  now  for 
the  first  time  made  between  sacred  and  secular  law  (H^H'  I?"!  and  yl^TS  *^?'^)  (4). 
To  promote  religious  knowledge  among  the  people,  a  commission,  consisting  of 
five  high  officials,  two  priests,  and  nine  Levites,  was  sent  about  the  country  with 
the  book  of  the  law  to  instruct  the  people,  xvii.  7-9.  There  was  undeniably  in 
this  respect  a  deficiency,  which  needed  to  be  supplied,  in  the  theocratic  ordi- 
nances, the  dissemination  of  religious  knowledge  among  the  people  being  chiefly 
carried  on  by  oral  family  tradition  (comp.  §  105).  The  measures  of  Jehoshaphat, 
however,  as  we  may  infer  from  the  narrative,  did  not  aim  at  any  permanent  insti- 
tution ;  and  there  is  no  ground  for  the  view,  entertained  by  many,  that  we  have 
in  them  the  rudiments  of  the  synagogue.  Hence  it  is  easy  to  understand  that, 
as  soon  as  a  king  set  them  a  bad  example,  the  mass  of  the  people  relapsed  into 
the  worship  of  nature,  which  is  undoubtedly  agreeable  to  the  sensual  inclinations  of 
mankind.  Under  Jehoshaphat  not  only  did  the  priesthood  attain  great  influence, 
but  the  powerful  prophets  Jehu  and  Eliezer  also  exercised  their  oflSce  during  his 
reign  (5)  ;  the  Levite  Jahaziel  also  came  forward,  xx.  14,  entirely  in  the  manner 
of  a  prophet.  The  reign  of  Jehoshaphat  was  also  externally  prosperous.  Special 
danger  threatened  the  state  from  an  attack  of  the  Ammonites,  Moabites,  and  other 
nations  dwelling  on  the  east.  It  was,  however,  frustrated  by  the  discord  and 
mutual  destruction  of  the  hostile  troops.  The  Korahite  Psalms  xlvii.  and  xlviii. 
]irobably  refer  to  this  deliverance.  The  alliance,  however,  of  Jehoshaphat  with 
tlie  northern  kingdom  was  a  fatal  mistake. 


404  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  THEOCRACY.        [§  180. 

(1)  About  this  time  the  above-named  (§  170)  prophet  Shemaiah  appeared,  and 
exerted  an  active  intiuence  at  Jerusalem  (2  Chron.  xii.  5  ff.). 

(2)  We  find,  with  Ewald,  an  historical  germ  in  3  Chron.  xiii.,  notwithstanding 
the  exaggerated  numbers. 

(3)  Azariah  is  also  intended,  3  Chron.  xv.  18,  where  a  prophet  Oded  appears 
only  through  a  textual  error. 

(4)  In  3  Chron.  xix.  8-11,  Jehoshaphat  is  said  to  have  set  up  a  supreme  court 
at  Jerusalem.  Its  organization  corresponds  with  the  injunction,  Deut.  xvii.  8 
sqq.  It  was  composed  of  Levites,  priests,  and  heads  of  tribes,  over  whom  were 
placed,  according  to  ver.  10,  the  High  priest  and  a  secular  judge,  and  it  was 
instituted  to  give  judgment  pTlIH)  in  all  difficult  cases  which  should  be  brought 
before  it  by  the  local  courts.  The  president  of  this  court  was  appointed  accord- 
ing to  the  distinction  between  "  matters  of  the  Lord"  and  "  matters  of  the  king." 
It  is  not  stated  what  cases  belonged  to  the  one  and  what  to  the  other. 

(5)  Jehu  the  son  of  Hanani  (3  Chron.  xix.  3),  already  mentioned  (§  173)  among 
the  prophets  who  remonstrated  in  the  northern  kingdom,  and  Eliezer  (xx.  37) 
both  sternly  condemned  the  alliance  into  which  Jehoshaphat  entered  with  the 
kings  of  Israel. 

§180. 
Jehoram  to  Jotham. 

Jehoram,  the  son  of  Jehoshaphat,  one  of  the  worst  kings  of  Judah  (1),  was  mar- 
ried to  Athaliah,  a  daughter  of  Ahab  and  Jezebel.  Under  her  influence,  he  became 
a  zealous  promoter  of  the  Phoenician  idolatry,  3  Chron.  xxi.  11  sq.,  3  Kings  viii. 
18,  now  openly  practised  in  Jerusalem,  where  a  temple  of  Baal  was  erected  ;  see 
xi.  18.  His  reign  was  also  unfortunate  externally.  Edom  fought  for  and  gained 
its  independence  (comp.  Jo.  iii.  19),  and  became  from  this  time,  by  reason  of  its 
mortal  hatred  toward  its  kindred  nation,  a  most  dangerous  neighbor  (comp.  Amos 
i.  11  sq.).  The  Philistines  and  Arabians  made  incursions  into  the  country,  and 
withdrew  with  considerable  spoil  (comp.  Jo.  iii.  4  ssq.).  In  consequence  of  this 
invasion,  many  Jews  were  carried  off  as  slaves,  Joel  iii.  3,  6,  Amos  i.  6,  and  thus  be- 
gan about  this  time  (between  890  and  880)  the  captivity  of  Israel  (2).  Jehoahaz  or  (as 
he  is  also  called)  Ahaziah,  the  son  of  Jehoram,  after  a  reign  of  scarcely  one  year, 
was  slain  along  with  the  whole  house  of  Ahab,  on  the  occasion  of  a  visit  which  he 
was  paying  to  his  royal  relatives  in  Israel  (comp.  §  174).  The  daughter  of  Jezebel, 
who  was  worthy  of  her  mother,  now  ruled  absolutely  at  Jerusalem.  The  males 
of  David's  race  were  at  this  time  grievously  diminished,  Jehoram  having  (2  Chron. 
xxi.  2-4)  slain  his  six  brethren,  and  himself  lost  all  his  sons  except  the  youngest 
at  the  incursion  of  the  Arabians  (xxi.  17,  xxii.  1)  ;  see  above.  Finally,  Athaliah  ut- 
terly extirpated  the  male  descendants  of  the  royal  race,  with  the  exception  of 
Joash,  a  young  son  of  Ahaziah,  who  was  saved  from  the  fury  of  his  grandmother 
by  his  aunt,  the  wife  of  the  high  priest  Jehoiada.  This  child,  the  last  scion  of 
the  house  of  David,  was  concealed  six  years  in  the  temple  ;  and  it  now  became 
evident  how  powerful  the  priesthood  had  grown  under  Jehoshaphat,  the  deliver- 
ance of  Judah  being  effected  not  by  prophets  but  by  priests.  In  a  cautiously 
planned  and  speedily  executed  insurrection,  Athaliah  was  slain  and  Joash  raised 
to  the  throne,  upon  which  a  renewal  of  the  theocratic  covenant  and  the  extir- 
pation of  the  worship  of  Baal  took  place,  3  Kings  xi.,  3  Chron.  xxiii.  (873  b.c.) 
(3).     The  guardianship  of  the  young  king  was  undertaken  by  Jehoiada  ;  and  it  is 


§  180.]  JEHORAM   TO   JOTHAM.  405 

to  the  period  immediately  following  (iibout  870  b.c.)  that  the  book  of  the  prophet 
Joel  must,  on  internal  grounds,  be  attributed.  It  was  a  period  during  which  the 
worship  of  Jehovah  flourished,  and  the  prophets  were  held  in  so  high  respect, 
that,  on  the  occasion  of  a  grievous  visitation,  priests  and  people  united,  at  the 
word  of  a  prophet,  in  holding  a  solemn  fast  in  the  temple  (4).  The  aspect  of  af- 
fairs was,  however,  entirely  changed  during  the  second  half  of  the  reign  of  Joash, 
after  the  death  of  Jehoiada.  Idolatry,  through  the  influence  of  the  nobles,  again 
got  the  upper  hand  ;  the  zealous  expostulations  of  the  prophets  were  unheeded  ; 
and  one  of  them  Zechariah  the  son  of  Jehoiada  was  stoned  by  the  king's  command 
(5).  After  a  very  unsuccessful  war  against  the  Syrians,  Joash  fell  a  victim  to  a 
conspiracy  (838  B.C.).  A  similar  fate  was  experienced  by  his  son  Amaziah, 
after  a  reign  at  first  prosperous,  especially  in  his  war  against  the  Edomites,  but 
rendered  during  its  further  progress  most  imfortunate  by  his  fatal  contest  against 
Jehoash,  king  of  Samaria  (§  175).  In  the  latter  conflict,  Jerusalem  itself  was 
again  conquered  and  plundered,  3  Kings  xiv.  8-14  ;  2  Chron.  xxv.  17  sqq.  (6). 
Uzziah,  in  the  Second  Book  of  Kings  and  once  in  Chronicles  called  Azariah, 
ascended  the  throne  at  a  time  of  great  disorder.  But  from  this  time  the  kingdom 
of  Judah  attained,  during  the  sixty-eight  years  which  comprise  the  reigns  of 
TJzziah  and  his  son  Jotham,  a  degree  of  power  such  as  it  had  not  possessed  since 
the  disruption  ;  while  the  sister  kmgdom  enjoyed  under  Jeroboam  II.  but  a  short 
period  of  prosperity  (§  175).  On  the  south,  Edom  was  subdued,  and  the  terri- 
tory of  Judah  again  extended  to  the  Gulf  of  Akabah  ;  in  the  west,  the  Philistines 
were  compelled  to  submit  ;  on  the  east,  the  Moabites  and  Ammonites  became 
tributaries  to  Judah  instead  of  the  northern  kingdom.  A  powerful  military  force 
was  raised,  the  country  defended  by  fortresses,  the  fortifications  of  Jerusalem 
itself  were  strengthened,  and  trade  and  agriculture  flourished  (7).  Still,  notwith- 
standing the  general  adherence  of  Uzziah  and  Jotham  to  the  theocratic  ordinances, 
2  Kings  XV.  3,  34,  the  moral  and  religious  condition  of  the  yeofle  was  not  satis- 
factory. Luxury,  pride,  and  oppression  of  the  poor  increased  together  with  power 
and  riches,  while  heathen  superstitions  and  other  foreign  customs  were  at  the 
same  time  disseminated.  See  the  characteristics  of  the  times  described,  Isa.  ii. 
5-8,  16  sqq.,  v.  18-23.  Idolatry,  too,  probably  of  the  same  kind  as  tlie  image- 
worship  at  Bethel,  was  tolerated,  if  not  at  Jerusalem,  in  other  parts  of  the  land, 
—at  Beer-sheba,  Amos  v.  5,  viii.  14  ;  and  Lachish,  Mic.  i.  13  (according  to  the 
probable  meaning  of  this  passage).  Hence  Isaiah,  in  spite  of  the  scoffers  in  high 
places  (v.  19  sqq.),  announced  in  the  days  of  Jotham  the  coming  of  the  day  of  the 
Lord  upon  all  who  were  proud  and  lofty,  that  they  might  be  brought  low,  ii.  12. 
The  judgment  already  in  process  of  infliction  upon  the  northern  kingdom  was 
now  to  overtake  Judah  also  (see  especially  vi.  9-13)  ;  but  here,  where  all  was  not 
as  yet  corrupt,  it  was  to  be  accomplished  by  slower  degrees  (8). 

(1)  Jehoram  seems  to  have  entered  upon  the  government  while  his  father  was 
still  living.  At  least  the  difficulties  here  presented  by  the  chronological  state- 
ments are^most  easily  obviated  by  admitting  his  association  with  his  father  in  the 
government.  See  Schlier,  DieKonige  in  Israel,  p.  121  sq.  and  124,  who,  however, 
reads  too  much  in  2  Chron.  xxi.  4  when  he  even  makes  Jehoram  take  his  royal 
father  into  custody. 

(2)  The  Jews  dispersed   in  the  heathen  world  are,  as  is  well  known,  called 


406  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OP  THE  THEOCRACY.         [§  180. 

nVu  (Ezek.  i.  1,  iii.  11,  etc.  ;  LXX  alx^ca?^(0(7la),  for  which  the  Hellenism  ihaGKopd 
subsequently  stands. 

(3)  The  overthrow  of  Athaliah  and  the  elevation  of  Joash  to  tlie  throne  were, 
according?  to  2  Chron.  xxiii.  1-11,  effected  by  Jehoiada,  through  the  assistance 
especially  of  tlie  division  of  Levites  employed  in  guarding  the  temple  ;  while  the 
narrative  2  Kings  xi.  4-12  makes  the  royal  body-guard  his  agents.  On  the  harmo- 
nizing of  the  two  statements,  see  Keil's  Gommentan/ on  the  Books  of  Kings,  i.  p.  438. 
The  extreme  brevity  of  the  narratives  in  the  Books  of  Kings  is  also  exemplified  by 
the  notice  of  tlie  appointment  of  Levitical  guards  to  prevent  any  further  desecra- 
tion of  the  Lord's  house  (2  Chron.  xxiii.  18  sq.,  corap.  with  2  Kmgs  xi.  18). 

(4)  The  contrition  shown  by  the  people  awakens  the  prophetic  hope  that 
the  final  and  already  approaching  judgment,  denounced  upon  Judah,  may  be 
turned  against  the  heathen,  and  the  return  of  those  members  of  the  covenant  peo- 
ple already  in  dispersion,  and  their  perfection  as  a  spiritual  church,  be  thus  brought 
to  pass.  From  the  lively  interest  in  the  temple  worship  which  characterizes  this 
prophet,  Ewald  (Prophets  of  the  Old  Covenant,  i.p.  153)  thinks  he  was  himself  a  priest 
at  Jerusalem.  Further  evidence  for  the  date  given  above  will  be  found  in  the 
Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament.  [The  opinions  are  at  present  again  very  much 
divided,  since  many  maintain  the  post-exilic  origin  of  the  Book  of  Joel ;  so  espe- 
cially Merx,  Die  Prophetie  des  Joelundihre  Arisleger,  1879.] 

(5)  The  first  example  of  the  martyrdom  of  a  prophet  narrated  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. 

(6)  Two  anonymous  prophets  are  mentioned  under  Amaziah,  2  Chron.  xxv.,  one 
of  whom  forbids  the  king  to  use  the  mercenary  soldiers  hired  by  him  from  the 
northern  kingdom  against  Edom,  while  the  other  rebukes  him  for  introducing  the 
idols  of  Edom.  and  is  on  this  account  dismissed  with  threats. 

(7)  Uzziah  was,  at  the  beginning  of  his  reign,  under  the  influence  of  the  prophet 
Zecharidh  (2  Chron.  xxvi.  5)  ;  but  the  encroachment  which  he  subsequently  at- 
tempted upon  the  privileges  of  the  priests,  by  presuming,  ver.  16  sq.,  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  law,  Num.  xviii.  7,  to  burn  incense  in  the  sanctuary,  manifests  the  ef- 
fort made  to  procure  for  the  kingly  office  in  Judah  a  position  similar  to  that  which, 
by  its  assumption  of  the  priesthood,  it  occupied  in  the  northern  kingdom. 

(8)  In  all  that  has  preceded  we  meet  with  no  prophetie  agency  in  Judah  which 
can  be  compared  to  the  evidently  more  authoritative  action  of  the  prophets  of  the 
northern  kingdom.  The  appearance  of  Isaiah  constitutes  indeed  an  epoch  ;  but 
before  proceeding  to  a  description  of  his  times,  we  must  direct  attention  to  the 
appearance  of  a  new  element  in  the  development  of  projihetism.  For  with  Joel, 
or  with  Obadiah, — if  the  latter  is  to  be  dated  as  early  as  Jehoram,  that  is,  in  the 
first  decade  of  the  9th  century  before  G\\r\^t, ^irophetia  authorship  m  the  stricter 
sense,  or  the  composition  of  the  prophetic  booJcs,  begins.  Earlier  prophets  had  also 
uttered  predictions  which  had  been  written  down  in  the  historical  books  compos- 
ed by  prophets.  The  foundations  of  prophetic  eschatology  had  already  been  giv- 
en in  a  general  manner  m  the  older  testimonies  of  revelation.  Still  the  gaze  of  the 
earlier  prophets  was  fixed  more  on  the  present  than  the  future  of  the  divine 
kingdom ;  and  their  words  of  exhortation,  menace,  or  promise  were  always 
directed  to  an  immediate  and  practical  purpose.  Now,  however,  when  that 
movement  of  the  nations  was  approaching  by  which  Israel  was  to  be  drawn  into 
the  contests  of  the  heathen  world  and  punished  for  its  apostasy,  when  the  pro- 
phetic consciousness  was  awakening  to  the  perception,  first  with  respect  to  the 
northern  kingdom,  but  soon  afterward  with  respect  to  Judah  also,  that  the 
Divine  counsels  of  redemption  could  not  be  accomplished  during  the  present  gen- 
eration, but  that  the  present  form  of  the  theocracy  nuist,  on  the  contrary,  be  de- 
stroyed, so  that,  after  the  execution  of  a  judicial  sifting  of  the  people,  the  redeem- 
ed church  of  the  future  for  which  the  nation  is  destined  might  arise, — the  pro- 
phetic word  attained  a  significance  extending  far  beyond  the  present.  Misunder- 
stood and  despised  for  the  most  part  by  contemj)oraries  who  were  lulled  into  vain 
dreams  by  the  flattering  predictions  of  false  prophets,  it  was  by  its  historical  ful- 
filment to  accredit  to  coming  generations  the  living  God  in  His  power,  righteous- 


§  180.]  JEHORAM   TO    JOTHAM.  407 

iiess,  and  faithfulness,  and  was  till  then  to  serve  as  a  light  to  tlie  pious,  by  the 
help  of  which  they  might,  during  the  obscurity  of  tlie  approaching  seasons  of  judg- 
ment, be  enlightened  concerning  the  ways  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  For  this  pur- 
pose, however,  it  was  necessary  that  the  word  of  prophecy  should  be  faitlifuUy 
handed  down,  and  this  could  only  be  done  by  committing  it  to  writing.  This  is 
frequently  referred  by  the  pro[)hets  to  the  direct  command  of  God  (Isa.  viii.  1, 
Hab.  ii.  2  sq.,  Jer.  xxxvi.  2)  ;  and  the  purpose  for  which  such  records  were  made, 
namely,  to  guarantee  to  the  coming  generation  the  veracity  of  the  Divine  word, 
is  expressly  declared  (Isa.  xxx.  8,  Jer.  xxx.  2,  comp.  Isa.  xxxiv.  16).  In  some 
cases  the  writing  of  a  prediction  was  directly  connected  with  its  oral  announce- 
ment, as  a  confirmation  of  the  latter;  in  which  case  it  may  sometimes  have  suf- 
ficed to  write  down,  in  the  presence  of  witnesses,  the  few  leading  words  in  whicli 
its  essence  was  comprised  (viii.  1  sq. ;  perhaps  xxx.  8  is  also  an  example).  In 
general,  however,  the  literary  work  was  carried  on  independently  of  the  oral 
ministration  ;  and  certain  prophets,  as  Amos,  Hosea,  Micali,  probably  did  not  till 
toward  the  close  of  their  career  work  up  into  a  systematically  arranged  and  com- 
pleted whole  the  essential  matter  of  the  predictions  uttered  by  them  at  different 
times,  and  thus  bequeath  to  posterity  a  general  representation  of  their  prophetic 
agency.  From  the  passages  in  which  older  and  no  longer  extant  predictions  are 
referred  to,  as  Isa.  ii.  2-4,  it  may  be  concluded  that  the  prophetic  no  less  than  the 
historical  books  have  been  incompletely  transmitted  to  us.  Mic.  iv.  1-i  seems 
derived  from  an  older  source  ;  and  the  prophecy  concerning  Moab,  Isa.  xv.  sq., 
is  expressly  stated  to  be  a  summary  of  former  Divine  predictions.  The  traces, 
however,  of  such  older  and  now^  lost  portions  are  by  no  means  so  abundant  as 
Ewald  {Prophets  of  the  Old  Covenant,  ii.  p.  102)  assimies.  Comp.  on  certain  supposed 
references  to  earlier  prophecies,  the  article  "  Prophetenthum  des  A.  T, "  p.  225. 
Finally,  the  assertion  of  Ewald,  that  our  present  collection  of  prophetic  books  is 
small  when  compared  Avith  the  actual  extent  of  prophetic  literature,  and  only  re- 
sembles the  few^  remaining  scions  of  some  once  numerous  race,  is  certainly  based 
upon  a  gross  exaggeration.  The  chief  evidence  against  it  lies  in  the  fact  that 
m  the  Book  of  Jeremiah— that  Uhrorum  saerorum  interpret  afque  vindex,  as  Kiiper 
aptly  designates  him— in  which  these  traces  of  lost  prophetical  books  are  chiefly 
said  to  be  found,  the  older  matter  is  derived  from  prophetic  books  still  preserved 
to  us.— In  these  remarks,  one  important  peculiari'-y  of  the  prophetic  writings  has 
been  already  alluded  to,  viz.  the  connection  existing  between  the  books,— the  more 
recent  prophets  frequently  appealing  for  confirmation  of  their  own  statements  to 
the  utterances  of  their  predecessors,  which  they  appropriate  and  enlarge  upon. 
Thus,  to  cite  only  two  examples,  Amos,  when  foretelling  judgments  against  the 
lieathen  nations,  ch.  i.  2,  begins  with  the  words  of  Joel  iii.  16,  and  the  later 
Micah  with  the  closing  Avords  of  the  earlier  (1  Kings  xxii.  28).  In  almost  all  the 
prophets,  references  or  allusions  to  earlier  prophetic  works  may  be  pointed  out. 
such  references  being  comparatively  most  frequent  in  Jeremiah  and  Zephaniah. 
This  circumstance,  as  well  as  the  connection  existing  between  the  prophetic  and 
historical  writings,  constitutes  the  aapifii/c  ^taSoxv,  which  Josephus,  c.  Ap.  i.  8, 
ascribes  to  the  Old  Testament  prophets.  They  hereby  testify  to  the  oneness  of 
spirit  existing  in  them,  to  the  oneness  of  the  Divine  word  proclaimed  by  them 
and  maintained  during  the  greatest  outward  changes,  and  to  the  continued 
validity  of  their  yet  unfulfilled  predictions. 


408  THE    DEVELOPMENT    OP   THE   THEOCRACY.  [§  181. 

SECOND   PERIOD. 

FROM   AHAZ   TO   JOSIAH    (741-639   B.C.). 

§181. 

Ahaz  and  Hezekiah. 

The  first  blow  fell  upon  the  kingdom  under  the  weak  and  idolatrous  Aliaz,  in 
the  war  undertaken  against  Judah  by  Rezin  and  Pekah,  the  confederate  kings  of 
Damascus  and  Samaria  (1).  The  war  broke  out  under  Jotham,  but  seems  to  have 
been  at  first  unaccompanied  by  important  results.  In  the  reign  of  Ahaz,  however, 
Judah  experienced  a  series  of  misfortunes.  In  the  north,  the  Jewish  forces  were 
annihilated  by  Pekah  in  a  terrible  battle  (3  Chron.  xxviii.  5  sq.)  ;  in  the  south, 
the  seaport  of  Elath  was  taken  by  Rezin  (3  Kings  xvi.  6),  and  the  Edomites  threw 
off  the  yoke,  their  hosts  invading  Judah  on  the  south,  as  those  of  the  Philistines 
tlid  on  the  west  (3  Chron.  xxviii.  17  sq.).  (Hence  we  find,  in  the  period  to  which 
Isa.  viii.  refers,  nothing  about  the  militia  and  other  warlike  preparations  with 
which  Uzziah  and  Jotham  had  protected  the  land.)  Nothing  was  left  to  the 
allies  but  to  conquer  Jerusalem  and  dethrone  the  house  of  David.  Then,  when 
the  heart  of  Ahaz  and  the  heart  of  his  people  were,  according  to  the  well-known 
passage  in  Isa.  vii.,  moved  as  the  trees  of  the  wood  are  moved  by  the  wind,  the 
help  of  the  God  of  Israel  was  offered  him  in  vain  by  Isaiah.  Incredulously  and 
hypocritically  were  the  prophet's  words  rejected,  for  Ahaz  had  already  betaken 
himself  for  aid  to  the  Assyrian  conqueror  Tiglath-pileser.  This  (as  we  have  seen, 
§  176)  was  indeed  afforded  ;  but  Ahaz  became  what  he  had  declared  himself  to 
be  (3  Kings  xvi.  7),  the  servmit  of  the  Assyrian  monarch,  and  the  people  now 
cameunde*-  the  Assyrian  rod  (Isa.  x.  34,  37).  Under  Ahaz  the  worship  of  idols  ^&3 
openly  practised  in  Jerusalem  itself  (3  Kings  xvi.  3  sq.  ;  3  Chron.  xxviii.  3  sqq. 
33  ;  comp.  also  Mic.  i.  13,  vi.  16)  (3).  Better  things  were  to  be  expected  of  the 
pious  and  powerful  Hezekiah  (735-696)  (3),  under  whom  Isaiah  zealously  labored, 
and  who  also  humbly  received  the  testimony  given  at  Jerusalem  by  the  prophet 
Micah,  the  plain  man  from  the  country  ;  comp.  the  narrative  Jer.  xxvi.  18  sq.  (4). 
But  an  inward  change  was  not  to  be  effected  among  the  people  by  a  merely  ex- 
ternal reformation  of  religion,  and  the  worship  of  idols  was  only  exchanged  for 
a  barren  zeal  for  rites  and  sacrifices  ;  comp.  Isa.  i.  10  sqq.  (5),  xxix.  13,  Mic.  vi.  6. 
Moral  corruption  was  especially  rife  among  the  upper  classes  of  the  theocracy,  as 
is  shown  in  the  rebukes  of  the  licentiousness  of  the  nobles,  the  tyrannical  admin- 
istration of  justice,  the  mercenary  services  of  the  priests  and  false  prophets  and 
the  servile  demagogism  of  the  latter,  by  the  prophets  Isaiah  and  Micah  ;  comp.  the 
passages,  Mic.  ii.  11,  ch.  iii.,  Isa.  i.  15  sqq.,  ix.  14  sq.,  xxviii.  7  sq.,  xxix.  30  sq  , 
etc.,  to  which  may  be  added  the  severe  words  addressed  to  Shebna,  the  chief 
minister  of  Hezekiah.  The  violent  party  of  the  nobles  in  Jerusalem,  who  con- 
tinued the  unfortunate  policy  of  Ahaz,  though  in  an  opposite  direction,  was  most 
pernicious  to  the  state.  Instead  of  patiently  submitting,  as  Isaiah  called  upon 
them  to  do  (comp.  x.  34,  37,  xxx.  15  sqq.,  etc.),  to  the  Assyrian  yoke  as  a  just 
punishment,  and  expecting  in  faith  the  help  of  God,  this  party  was   continually 


§  181.]  AHAZ   AND   HEZEKIAH.  409 

plotting  to  revolt  from  Assyria,  and  urging  the  king  to  ally  himself  with  the  Egyp- 
tian kingdoms,  one  of  which  (as  appears  from  Isa.  xxx.  4)  had  Tanis  for  its  capital, 
and  appears  to  have  extended  over  Lower  and  Middle  Egypt ;  while  tne  other, 
consisting  of  Upper  Egypt,  was  under  the  Cushite  conqueror  Tirhakah  (the  Tara- 
kos  of  the  Greeks)  ;  2  Kings  xix.  9,  comp.  Isa.  xviii.  (6).  At  this  period,  it  was 
to  Egypt  and  Gush  that  the  lesser  states  bordering  on  the  Mediterranean  Sea 
generally  looked  for  assistance  against  the  Assyrian  power,  which  was  gradually 
pressing  farther  and  farther  westward  (see  the  passage  indicative  of  this,  Isa.  xx. 
5)  (7).  The  decided  revolt,  however,  of  Hezekiah  from  Assyria  probably  took 
place  not  in  the  reigu  of  Shalmaneser  (8),  but  at  the  time  when  Sennacherib,  im- 
mediately after  his  accession,  was  engaged  in  campaigns  against  Babylon  and 
Media  (9).  In  the  third  year  of  his  reign,  however  (10),  we  find  Sennacherib 
resuming  the  project  of  his  father  (Sargon)  for  the  conquest  of  Egypt,  and  on 
this  occasion  designing  to  punish  Judah  also  for  its  disloyalty.  When,  on  its 
march  toward  Egypt,  the  Assyrian  army  invaded  and  devastated  Judah,  taking 
fortress  after  fortress,  Hezekiah  sent  ambassadors  to  Sennacherib  to  sue  for  peace, 
offering  to  pay  all  that  should  be  demanded  of  him.  Sennacherib  appears  to  have 
been  pacified,  and  to  have  imposed  upon  Hezekiah  the  enormous  tribute  of  three 
hundred  talents  of  silver  and  thirty  talents  of  gold  (2  Kmgs  xviii.  13  sqq.).  It 
seems  to  me  that  the  threatenings  of  Isa.  xxii.  1-14  must  be  referred  to  this  period, 
when  danger  was  apparently  averted  by  this  payment,  and  Jerusalem  had  given 
itself  up  to  frivolity  and  rejoicing  (11).  Sennacherib,  however,  having  received 
the  money,  broke  his  engagement  (xxxiii.  7  refers  to  this  faithlessness  of  the  As- 
syrian king),  and  now  sent  his  general  Tartan,  with  two  other  high  officials  and 
a  portion  of  his  array,  from  Lachish  to  Jerusalem,  to  demand,  with  insolent  con- 
tempt both  for  Hezekiah  and  the  God  of  Israel,  the  surrender  of  the  capital  also, 
on  which  occasion  he  openly  announced  his  intention  of  carrying  away  the  .lew- 
ish  people  (ch.  xxxvi.  ;  2  Kings  xviii.  17  sqq.).  In  this  desperate  condition  (12), 
Hezekiah  knew  of  no  other  refuge  than  that  of  prayer  ;  and  the  prophet  now  an- 
nounced an  approaching  act  of  Divine  deliverance,  in  answer  to  the  scornful  de- 
fiance of  the  living  God  on  the  part  of  the  heathen  conqueror.  It  took  place,  by  the 
destruction  of  the  Assyrian  army,  on  the  very  night  before  Sennacherib  advanced 
to  attack  the  city.  This  event  probably  occurred  in  the  neighborhood  of  Jerusalem, 
Isa.  xxxvi.  sq.,  2  Kings  xviii.  sq.,  2  Chron.  xxxii. ,  and  may  be  supposed  to  have  been 
effected  by  a  pestilence  (so  Josephus  ;  comp.  also  the  narrative  2  Sam.  xxiv.  16) 
(13).  Psalms  xlvi.  and  Ixxv,  apparently  refer  to  this  deliverance  of  Jerusalem  (14). 
A  description  of  this  occurrence  is  given  from  an  Egyptian  standpoint  in  Herodo- 
tus, ii.  141.  The  deliverance  is  there  represented  as  the  result  of  the  prayer  of 
Sethon,  the  priest-king  of  Egypt,  when  reduced  to  utter  despair  by  Sennacherib's 
attack.  A  host  of  field-mice,  he  tells  us,  spread  themselves  by  night  over  the 
Assyrian  army,  and  gnawed  the  quivers  and  bows,  and  the  straps  of  the  shields, 
so  that  on  the  following  day  the  now  defenceless  army  took  to  flight,  and  a  mul- 
titude of  men  perished.  The  mouse  being  the  well-known  symbol  of  destruc- 
tion and  especially  of  pestilence  (comp.  1  Sam.  vi.  4),  the  story  may  have  arisen 
from  a  misunderstanding  of  this  symbol.  Herodotus  further  tells  us  that  there 
was  in  the  temple  of  Hephasstos  a  stone  imnge  of  Sethon  with  a  mouse  in  his  hand 
(15).     The  Assyrian  power  was  now  so  weakened,  that   though  Manasseh,  the 


410  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  THEOCRACY.         [§  181. 

successor  of  Hezekiah,  was  made  to  feel  it  (probably  under  Esar-haddon),  yet  it 
no  longer  menaced  Judah  with  any  lasting  injury.  In  its  place,  however,  ap- 
peared, as  Isaiah  had,  on  the  occasion  narrated  2  Kings  xx.  12  sqq.,  Isa.  xxxix., 
foretold  (16),  the  already  rising  Chaldee-Baby Ionian  power,  which  accomplished 
the  judgment  of  God  against  Judah, — a  Babylonian  captimty  having  been  pre- 
dicted against  this  nation  by  Micah  also. 

(1)  Tliis  war,  opening  as  it  does  a  new  epoch,  was  briefly  mentioned  in  the 
history  of  the  northern  kingdom  (§  176),  but  must  be  now  somewhat  more  particu- 
larly described.  Much  has  been  written  concerning  it ;  see  especially  an  article 
by  Caspari  on  the  Syro-Ephraimitish  war  in  the  "Univ.-Programm"  of  Chris- 
tiania,  1844,  with  the  conclusions  of  which,  however,  I  do  not  entirely  agree  ; 
also  Movers  [Kritisclie  Untersuchtmgen  iiher  die  Chronik,  1834,  pp.  144-155),  who 
incorrectly  applies  Isa.  i.  to  this  period.  The  question  is  how  to  combine  the 
different  notices  in  3  Kings  xvi.  5  sqq.  and  2  Chron.  xxviii.  5  sqq.,  to  which  must 
be  added  Isa.  vii. 

(3)  The  priests  themselves  seem  to  have  lent  a  helping  hand  to  the  king  in  this 
matter ;  comp.  2  Kings  xvi.  10,  and  what  Bertheau  remarks  on  2  Chron.  xix.  34  : 
"  the  Levites  were  more  upright  in  heart  to  sanctify  themselves  than  the  priests." 
The  priests  had  perhaps  had  a  greater  share  in  the  introduction  of  the  idolatrous 
worship  by  Ahaz,  and  therefore  entered  more  slowly  into  the  views  of  Hezekiah. 

(3)  [Comp.  the  art.  "  Hiskia"  revised  by  Delitzsch,  in  the  2d  ed.  of  Herzog,  and 
Kleinert's  art.  "  Hiskia"  in  Riehm.]  The  authorities  for  the  history  of  the  twenty- 
nine  years'  reign  of  Hezekiah  ('iH'pin  or  •'''^^pin',  abbreviated  n'pjn  or  n^pin'^ 
LXX  'E^f/c/flf)  are  2  Kings  xviii.-xx.;  Isa.  xxxvi.-xxxix. ;  3  Chron.  xxix.-xxxii.; 
with  which  must  be  combined  tlie  discourses  of  Isaiah  referring  to  this  period, 
and  the  Book  of  Micah,  which  was  composed  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  and 
probably  during  its  first  six  years.  Hezekiah  zealously  pursued  two  objects, — 
one,  the  elevation  of  the  moral  and  religious  condition  of  his  people,  by  the 
destruction  of  idolatry  and  the  restoration  of  the  theocratic  rites  ;  the  other,  the 
re-establishment  of  the  independence  of  his  kingdom,  by  shaking  off  the  Assyrian 
yoke.  The  former,  viz.  the  reformation  he  effected,  is  mentioned  in  only  a 
summary  manner  in  2  Kings  xviii.  4,  while  it  is,  on  the  other  hand,  very  circum- 
stantially described  2  Chron.  xxix.  sqq.  According  to  the  latter,  Hezekiah,  so 
early  as  in  the  first  month  of  the  new  year  beginning  after  his  accession  to  the 
throne  (so  xxix.  8  is  to  be  understood  ;  see  Bertheau  in  loc.  and  Caspari,  Beitr.  znr 
Einl.  in  das  Buck  Jes(rja,  p.  Ill),  had  the  temple  purified  by  priests  and  Le- 
vites, and  then  broke  in  pieces  the  brazen  serpent  made  by  Moses  (§  30),  to 
which  the  people  had  burned  incense,  2  Kings  xviii.  4.  Tlie  worship  of  .lehovah 
Avas  restored  by  solemn  sacrifices,  by  means  of  which  atonement  was  first  made 
for  the  people,  and  then  praise-  and  thank-offerings  were  offered  to  God  by  the 
reconciled  people.  A  great  Pecs'SOTer  was,  according  to  2  Chron.  xxx.,  afterward 
held,  to  which  not  only  the  subjects  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  but  also  all  the 
members  of  the  other  tribes  still  dwelling  in  Palestine  were  invited,  though  but 
few  availed  themselves  of  the  opportunity.  Before  the  commencement  of  the 
festival,  the  idolatrous  altars  in  Jerusalem  were  destroyed  ;  and  after  it,  all  who 
had  taken  part  in  its  celebration  proceeded  to  destroy  tlie  monuments  of  idolatry 
throughout  the  country.  On  the  probable  date  of  the  above  Passover,  see  §  177  ; 
for  the  different  views,  see  the  article  in  Herzog's  Ileal- EncyMop.  vi.  p.  152.  In 
whatever  year,  however,  this  Passover  may  have  been  held,  it  is  certain,  from  the 
numerous  intimations  in  Micah  and  Isaiah  (see  them  as  collected  in  Caspari,  id.  p. 
56  sq.),  that  in  the  earlier  years  of  Hezekiah  the  worship  of  idols  must  have  been 
still  widely  disseminated  in  Judah.  Subsequently,  too,  though  no  heathen  nor 
any  kind  of  anti-theocratic  worship  was  any  longer  tolerated,  it  was  apparently 
as  impossible  as  in  former  reformations  to  enforce  a  total  extirpation  of  idolatry  ; 
and  we  find  also,  from  2  Kings  xxiii.  13,  that  neither  was  the  entire  destruction 
of  the  ancient  high  places  effected,      [Against  Wellluuisen's  position  (i.  p.  26), 


§  181.]  AHAZ   AND   HEZEKIAH.  411 

that  the  attempt  of  Hezekiah  to  destroy  the  other  sanctuaries  which  existed  along 
with  the  temple  had  no  result,  and  therefore  admits  of  qiiestion,  comp.  Is.  xxxvi. 
7.  For  the  assertion  that  "  it  is  certain  that  the  prophet  Isaiah  did  not  labor  to 
set  aside  the  high  places,"  he  has  no  better  proof  than  Is.  xxx.  22,  "  ye  shall  defile 
also  the  covering  of  your  graven  images  of  silver  and  the  ornament  of  your  molten 
images  of  gold  .  .  .  'Get  ye  hence,'  will  ye  say  thereto,"  on  which  he  rests 
the  conclusion  :  "if  he  hopes  therefore  that  Jehovah's  places  of  worship  will  be 
cleansed  of  superstitious  stuff,  it  is  clear  that  he  does  not  propose  to  destroy 
them."]  We  are  further  told,  2  Chron.  xxxi.,  of  the  provision  made  by  Hezekiah 
for  the  establishment  of  the  restored  rites  of  worsliip,  and  especially  for  the  main- 
tenance of  the  priests  and  Levites.  Further  particuhirs  concerning  this  matter, 
and  other  notices  referring  to  the  priests  and  Levites  of  Hezekiah's  times,  will  be 
found  in  the  article  "  Leviten  und  Priester"  in  Herzog's  Real^EncyMop.  viii.  p. 
356  sq. 

(4)  See  the  explanation  of  the  passage  in  Caspari,  Ueber  Micha  den  Morasthiten, 
p.  56.     The  occurrence  must  have  taken  place  in  the  earlier  years  of  Hezekiah. 

(5)  I  take  it  for  granted  that  the  preface  to  Isaiah,  ch.  i.,  was  written  not  in 
the  reign  of  Uzziah  or  Jotham,  but  in  that  of  Hezekiah,  i.  7,  which  it  would  be 
unnatural  to  regard  as  a  prediction,  being  utterly  unsuitable  to  the  former  reigns, 
or  to  that  of  Ahaz,  to  whose  times  i.  10  sqq.  has  also  no  application. 

(6)  It  is  probable  that  this  policy  was  secretly  pursued  by  the  court  at  Jerusa- 
lem from  the  beginning  of  Hezekiah's  reign.  Ver.  15  of  Isa.  xx.,  which  certainly 
belongs  to  this  earlier  period,  may  allude  to  this  fact. 

(7)  See  the  full  discussion  of  the  political  relations  of  the  times  in  Movers, 
Phonicier,  ii.  1,  p.  393  sqq.  [Also  Ranke,  WeltgescMchte,  i.  p.  92  sq.,  and  Strachey, 
Jewish  History  and  Politics  in  the  Times  of  Sargon  and  Sennacherib,  London,  1874.] 

(8)  This  cannot  be  admitted,  because  it  would  be  incomprehensible  that  Shal- 
maneser,  when  destroying  the  northern  kingdom,  should  have  spared  Judah,  if  it 
also  had  broken  faith  with  him.  The  expeditions  of  Slialmaneser  [and  his  suc- 
cessor Sargon]  against  Samaria,  Phcenicia,  and  Palestine,  may  certainly  have 
affected  Judah  ;  but  of  an  Assyrian  attack  of  Judea  at  this  period  we  hear  abso- 
lutely nothing. 

(9)  On  the  former,  see  Brandis,  Ueber  den  historischen  Gewinnausdei'  Entzifferung 
der  assyrischen  Inschriften,  p.  44  sqq. 

(10)  According  to' the  usual  chronology,  712  or  711  ;  according  to  Brandis, 
700;  according  to  Movers,  even  691  B.C.  [The  usual  reckoning  wliich  rests  on 
the  biblical  statement  that  tlie  invasion  of  Sennacherib  occurred  in  tlie  fourteenth 
year  of  Hezekiah  (Is.  xxxvi.  1)  cannot  well  be  correct,  since  Sennacherib  ascended 
the  throne  in  the  year  705,  and  after  Sargon's  reign  of  sixteen  years,  who  became 
king  about  722.  Comp.  the  art.  "Hiskia"  in  Herzog,  2d.  ed.  and  especially 
Schrader,  art.  "  Sanherib"  in  Riehm  ;  on  Sennacherib's  account  of  his  undertaking 
against  Jerusalem,  see  Buddensieg,  Die  assyr.  Ausgrabungen  und  das  A.  Testament, 
p.  60  sqq.]. 

(11)  Caspari,  Beitrdge,  p.  153  sq.,  places  this  passage  somewhat  earlier.  It  has 
in  fact  been  assigned  to  every  possible  place.  Isa.  i.  may  also  have  been  written 
about  this  time.     See  further  particulars  in  the  article  quoted,  p.  153  sq. 

(12)  Hezekiah  indeed  zealouslv  used  every  means  for  the  defence  of  the  city, 
2  Chron.  xxxii.  3-6  (comp.  Isa.  xxii.  9-11,  in  which  latter  passage  the  former  ap- 
pears to  be  introductory.  See  on  this  matter  the  article  quoted,  p.  154.  But 
notwithstanding  all,  the  situation  of  Jerusalem  was,  humanly  speaking,  past  help. 
"This  day  is  a^day  of  trouble,  and  of  rebuke,  and  of  blasphemy  ;  for  the  children 
are  come  to  the  birth,  and  there  is  not  strength  to  bring  forth,"  are  the  words  in 
which  Hezekiah,  Isa.  xxxvii.  3,  describes  the  anxiety  and  despairing  efforts  of 
those  days.  The  danger  was  enhanced  when  Sennacherib,  on  the  report  of  the 
approach  of  Tirhakah,  departed  with  his  army  from  Lachish  to  Libnah,  which 
was  nearer  to  Jerusalem,  and  was  now  obliged  by  prudential  reasons  to  make  the 
most  strenuous  efforts  to  overcome  Jerusalem,  for  the  sake  of  securing  his  rear, 
Isa,  xxxvii.  8  sqq.,  2  Kings  xix.  8  sqq. 


412  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  THEOCKACT.         [§  182. 

(13)  Isa.  xxxvii.  36  sq.,  2  Kings  xix.  35  sq.  :  "And  the  angel  of  the  Lord  went 
forth,  and  smote  in  the  camp  of  tlie  Assyrians  a  hundred  and  fourscore  and  five 
thousand  :  and  when  they  arose  early  in  the  morning,  behold,  they  were  all  dead 
corpses.  So  Sennacherib  king  of  Assyria  departed,  and  went  and  returned  and 
dwelt  at  Nineveh."  For  further  particulars  concerning  the  date  and  place  of  the 
Assyrian  overthrow,  see  p.  155  of  the  above  article. 

(14)  That  the  surrounding  heathen  nations  also  received,  as  Isaiah  had  predicted, 
xviii.  7,  some  idea  of  the  greatness  of  the  God  of  Israel,  is  shown  by  the  notice, 
2  Chron.  xxxii.  23  :  "Many  brought  gifts  unto  the  Lord  to  Jerusalem,  and  pres- 
ents to  Hezekiah  king  of  Judah  :  so  that  he  was  magnified  in  the  sight  of  all 
nations  from  henceforth"  (comp.  Ps.  Ixxvi.  12).  This  event  is  also  frequently 
mentioned  in  later  writings,  viz.  Tob.  i.  18,  according  to  which  Sennacherib,  wlien 
he  fled  from  Judah,  is  said  in  his  rage  to  have  put  many  Jews  to  death  in  Nineveh  ; 
also  1  Mace.  vii.  41  ;  2  Mace.  A'iii.  19  ;  3  Mace.  vi.  5. 

(15)  See,  in  illustration,  Hitzig,  Urgeschkhte  und  Mythohgie  der  PMlistder,  p. 
201  sq.  It  is  also  very  probable  that  two  different  occurrences  are,  as  Ewald 
supposes,  Hist,  of  Israel,  iv.  180  sqq.,  alluded  to  in  Herodotus  and  in  the  Old 
Testament.  See  the  above  article,  p.  155.  Isa.  xxxviii.  and  2  Kings  xx.  connect 
the  account  of  Hezekiah's  mortal  illness  and  miracuhms  cure  immediately 
with  the  destruction  of  the  Assyrian  host.  [But  the  sickness  and  the  embassy 
of  Merodach  Baladan,  which  followed  it,  appear  to  have  occurred  at  an  earlier 
period.  Comp.  Delitzsch,  art.  "  Hiskia"  in  Herzog,  ed.  2.]  We  have  no  full 
account  of  the  second  half  oj  RezeTciali's  reign  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  interest 
in  the  ancient  sacred  literature  which  Hezekiah  was  the  means  of  reviving  should 
be  mentioned  (comp.  Drechsler,  Jesaja,  ii.  2,  p.  221,  and  §  169  with  note  3).  He 
prescribed  the  use  of  the  Psalms  in  public  worship,  2  Chron.  xxix.  30.  On  the 
whole,  2  Kings  xviii.  5  awards  to  this  king  the  commendation  that  "  after  him 
was  none  like  him  among  all  the  kings  of  Judah,  nor  any  that  were  before  him." 

(16)  See  on  this  narrative  the  article  cited,  p.  156  sq.  [For  the  light  cast  on  this 
period  from  Assyrian  sources,  cf.  Schrader,  Keilinschrifteti  und  A,  T.  ;  Rawlinson, 
Monarchies^  vol.  ii.  ;  Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  i.-v. — D.] 


§182. 

Manasseh  and  Anion. 

Judah  was  fast  ripening  for  judgment  under  the  two  kings  Manasseh  (696-641) 
and  Amon  (641-639),  who  systematically  set  to  work  to  overthrow  the  worship  of 
Jehovah,  and  to  establish  the  undisputed  supremacy  of  idolatry.  The  conversion 
of  Manasseh,  related  2  Chron.  xxxiii.  11,  seems  to  have  produced  no  decided  effect 
upon  the  people,  and  its  results  were  at  all  events  frustrated  by  Amon.  (1).  The 
heathenism  prevailing  in  Judah  had,  however,  since  the  days  of  Ahaz,  attained 
under  Assyrian  influence  a  new  character.  The  old  Canaanitish  adoration  of  Baal, 
Ashera,  and  Astarte  still,  indeed,  continued  (see  especially  2  Kings  xxi.  3,  7). 
This  was,  however,  subordinate  to  the  Assyrian  woi'ship  of  fire  and  the  heavenly 
todies,  which  now  occupied  the  foreground.  It  is  true  that  the  Canaanitish  (or 
Phoenician)  worship  of  nature  had  also  reference  to  the  stars,  inasmuch  as  they 
were  regarded  as  depositaries  of  the  powers  of  nature,  and  as  the  originators  of 
all  the  developments  and  occurrences  of  nature.  In  the  star-worship  of  Upper 
Asia,  on  the  contrary,  arising  as  it  did  from  the  Magism  which  tolerated  no  images, 
this  dualistic  origin  is  banished,  the  stars  not  being  regarded  as  producing  and 
generating  powers,  but  only  as  the  governors  and  conductors  of  sublunary  affairs, 
-—a  notion  from  which  astrology  was  developed.     It  was  probably  in  connection 


§  182.]  MANASSEH    AJ^D    AMON".  4]3 

with  the  worship  introduced  from  Upper  Asia,  of  the  fire-gods  Adramraelech  and 
Anammelech  (2),  to  whom  children  were  burned,  xvii.  31,  that  the  worship  of 
Moloch,  with  its  sacrifices  of  children,  formerly  disseminated  among  the  people, 
but  now  for  several  centuries  abandoned,  was  resumed  in  Judah.  Ahaz  had 
already  devoted  himself  to  it  (xvi.  3),  and  its  chief  seat  was  the  valley  of  the  son 
of  Hmnom  at  Jerusalem  (xxiii.  10  ;  2  Chron.  xxxiii.  6  ;  Jer.  vii.  13,  and  other 
passages).  Ahaz  also  built,  according  to  2  Kings  xxiii.  12,  altars  for  the  worship  of 
"the  sun,  the  moon,  and  all  the  host  of  heaven,"  which  were  undoubtedly  de- 
stroyed by  Hezekiah  ;  and  he  may  perhaps  have  mingled  such  worship  with  that 
of  Jehovah, — at  least  what  is  told  us  xvi.  10  sqq.  may  be  so  understood.  Under 
Manasseh,  however,  altars  for  the  worship  of  the  stars  were  erected  throughout 
Jerusalem  ;  and  the  temple  itself  was  dedicated  to  this  and  to  the  service  of  Ashera 
(xxi.  5,  xxiii.  5,  11  ;  Jer.  vii.  30,  comp.  with  viii.  2,  etc.).  That  the  religious  life  of 
the  people  was,  by  the  introduction  of  the  Upper  Asian  worship,  raised  to  a  higher 
stage  of  development,  as  Vatke  e.g.  asserts,  is  an  utterly  preposterous  theory  ;  the 
effect  was  only  to  increase  the  already  existing  religious  syncretism,  which  is 
always  a  sign  of  weakness.  From  the  standpoint  of  prophecy,  the  worship  of  the 
host  of  heaven  was  quite  as  decidedly  condemned  as  the  Canaanitish  idolatry 
(Jer.  viii.  3  ;  Zeph.  i.  5  ;  Ezek.  viii.  15-17  ;  2  Kings  xvii.  16  ;  comp.  also  Job 
xxxi.  26-28).  It  is  true  that  both  2>i'iests  and  prophets  participated  in  the  universal 
degeneration  of  religious  life  (see  Zeph.  iii.  4 ;  Jer.  ii.  8,  26  sq.)  (3)  ;  but  while 
no  trace  of  resistance  to  the  abominations  of  Manasseh  is  to  be  discovered  on  the 
part  of  the  priesthood,  there  were  at  least  T>rophets  who  raised  their  voices  against 
them,  2  Kings  xxi.  10,  and  were  among  the  innocent  blood  with  vrhich  Manasseh, 
according  to  ver.  16  and  xxiv.  4,  filled  Jerusalem.  For  it  is  with  reference  to  these 
times  that  Jeremiah  says,  ch.  li.  30:  "youl-  own  sword  hath  devoured  your 
prophets  like  a  destroying  lion"  (comp.  Joseph.  Antiq.  x,  3.  1).  According  to 
tradition,  Isaiah  was  also  among  the  victims  of  Manasseh.  It  was  because  the 
prophets  sealed  their  testimony  with  their  blood  that  no  written  prophetic  testi- 
mony of  this  date  has  come  down  to  us  (4).  It  was  "  the  sins  of  Manasseh"  (as  is 
now  the  usual  expression,  2  Kings  xxiii.  26,  xxiv.  3,  and  other  passages)  which, 
unatoned  for  and  unpardoned,  from  henceforth  lay  as  a  burden  upon  the  people, 
though  better  times  once  more  appeared. 

(1)  [On  the  confirmation  of  the  account  in  Chronicles  by  the  cuneiform  in- 
scriptions, comp.  Kleinert,  art.  "  Manasse"  in  Riehm,  F.  W.  Schultz  in  Zockler, 
i.  p.  283,  H.  Schultz,  p.  762.  But  if  the  latter  and  Reuss,  §  268,  doubt  the  conver- 
sion of  Manasseh,  on  the  ground  of  passages  like  2  K.  xxiii.  26.  xxiv.  3,  Jer.  xv.  4, 
reference  may  be  made,  on  the  other  hand,  to  1  K.  xxi.  28  sq.,  where  it  is  said  that 
by  his  humbling  himself,  the  sins  of  Ahab  and.  his  house  were  not  expiated,  but 
only  his  personal  punishment  was  mitigated.] 

(2)  [Comp.  the  articles  of  Schrader  in  Riehm.] 

(3)  According  to  2  Kings  xxiii.  8,  besides  the  □"'lOf'  appointed  (ver.  5)  by  the 
kings  of  Judah,  Levitical  priests  must  also  have  participated  in  the  idolatrous 
worship  at  the  high  places.  Nay,  if  the  description  given  Ezek.  viii.  14  sqq.  is, 
as  Hitzig  supposes,  to  be  referred  to  the  time  of  Manasseh,  the  entire  priesthood, 
as  represented  by  its  heads  (comp.  §  166,  note  7),  had  surrendered  itself  to 
idolatry. 


414  THE    DEVELOPMENT   OF   THE   THEOCRACY.  [§  183. 

THIED   PEBIOD. 
FROM  JOSIAH  TO  THE  OVERTHROW    OF  THE  STATE   (639-588). 

§  183. 

Josiah. 

This  period  opens  with  the  last  struggle  of  the  theocratic  principle  against  the 
idolatry  and  immorality  of  the  people,  and  with  the  last  temporary  elevation  of 
the  kingdom  under  Josiah  (1).  King  Amon  having  fallen  a  victim  to  a  conspiracy, 
the  people  arose,  slew  the  conspirators,  and  placed  Josiah,  a  child  of  eight  years 
old,  and  son  of  the  murdered  monarch,  on  the  throne.  In  the  eighth  year  of 
his  reign,  says  the  here  more  particular  account  of  Chronicles  (3  Chron.  xxxiv.), 
Josiah,  then  a  youth  of  sixteen,  began  to  seek  after  the  God  of  David  his  father, 
and  in  his  twelfth  year  he  began  to  purge  Judah  and  Jerusalem  from  idolatrous 
worship,  the  places  for  sacrificing  to  Moloch  in  the  valley  of  Hiunom  being  then 
also  destroyed  and  profaned  (3).  The  reform  inaugurated  was  not,  however, 
thoroughly  carried  out  till  his  eighteenth  year.  For  then,  at  the  purging  and  res- 
toration of  the  temple,  Hilkiah  the  high  priest  found  the  ioolc  of  the  law,  which 
during  the  sixty  years'  public  supremacy  of  heathenism  had  fallen  into  oblivion. 
The  king  was  struck  with  fear  when  he  heard  the  curses  threatened  for  apostasy, 
and  the  words  of  the  prophetess  Huldah,  to  whom  he  had  sent  to  inquire  (3  Kings 
xxii.  11  sq.).  The  most  strenuous  measures  were  now  taken  for  the  complete 
extirpation  of  idolatry,  and  extended  even  beyond  the  limits  of  the  kingdom  to 
the  towns  of  the  Samaritan  district,  the  people  being  again  bound  to  the  covenant 
of  their  fathers,  and  a  solemn  Passover  held  (8).  Upon  this  finding  of  the  book 
of  the  law  in  the  reign  of  Josiah,  the  following  hypotheses  have  been  founded  : — 
That  by  the  book  of  the  law  we  are  only  to  understand  a  portion  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, and  that  at  this  time,  Deuteronomy,  or  a  part  of  it,  was  fabricated,  and  inter- 
polated by  the  priests,  with  the  assistance  of  the  prophets,  in  the  interest  of  the 
reforms  now  undertaken.  This,  which  is  the  hypothesis  of  Gramberg,  P.  von 
Bohlen,  and  others,  receives  no  kind  of  support  from  the  narrative  (4),  though  it 
is  probably  true  that  the  threats  which  alarmed  the  king  were  those  contained  in 
Deuteronomy  xxviii.  But  to  affirm  that  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Kings  speaks 
only  of  the  finding  of  a  portion  of  the  law,  and  that  it  is  inconceivable  that 
the  rest  of  the  Pentateuch,  if  it  existed,  should  have  been  put  aside,  is  most 
groundless  and  arbitrary.  That  the  law,  of  which  by  reason  of  the  state  of  ancient 
literature  but  few  copies  might  exist,  should  have  fallen  into  oblivion  in  the  sixty 
years  during  which  the  worship  of  Jehovah  hud  been  abrogated  as  the  religion  of 
the  state,  is  so  little  inconceivable,  that  the  contrary  would  rather  be  a  matter  of 
astonishment  (5).  This  last  reformation,  which,  in  spite  of  the  severity  accom- 
panying it,  was  unable  to  extirpate  the  secret  worship  of  idols,  to  say  nothing  of 
the  heathen  inclinations  of  the  people,  effected  only  an  external  prevalence  of  the 
forms  of  the  legitimate  worship,  but  was  unable  to  produce  in  the  degenerate  nation 
a  real  purification  of  faith  and  morals.  It  was,  as  Jeremiah  says,  iii.  30,  a  turning 
not  with  the  whole  heart,  but  feignedly, — a  sanctimonious  liypocrisy,  wjiich  re- 


§  183.]  JOSIAH.  415 

garded  the  external  restoration  of  the  worship  of  God  as  sufficient.  Even  the 
ruins  of  Samaria,  testifying  as  they  did  to  the  severity  of  God's  penal  judgments, 
only  served  to  confirm  the  delusion  that  the  Divine  protection  was  tlie  more 
firmly  pledged  to  Judah,  and  thus  to  harden  them  in  their  carnal  security  (comp. 
e.g.  the  stern  address  of  the  prophet  Jeremiah,  vii.  1-15,  in  reply  to  the  boast, 
"  The  temple  of  the  Lord  is  here").  The  jmests  had  indeed,  as  previously  under 
Hezekiah  (§  181,  note  3),  offered  themselves  to  the  king  as  instruments  in  this 
reformation  ;  but  falsehood  and  hypocrisy,  and  a  generally  coarse  and  profane 
disposition,  characterized  the  priesthood  in  these  days  (comp.  the  passages  Jer.  v. 
31,  vi.  13,  viii.  10,  xxiii.  11)  (6j.  And  while  the  priests  were  treating  the  law 
itself  with  neglect,  nay,  incurring  the  guilt  of  grossly  violating  it  (Ezek.  xxii. 
26),  and  falsifying  it  by  the  manner  in  which  they  interpreted  it  (Jer.  viii.  8),  they 
boasted  of  it,  and  of  those  legal  rites  which  guaranteed  the  permanence  of  the 
state,  and  whose  continuance  could  be  secured  only  by  themselves,  for  "The  law 
cannot  perish  from  the  priest,"  xviii.  18  ;  comp.  also  vii.  4  sqq.,  viii.  11,  etc.  Still 
it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  fact  that  such  men  as  the  prophets  Jeremiah  and 
Ezekiel  were  found  m  the  priestly  order,  is  a  proof  that  a  sacred  germ  must  have 
existed  in  the  degenerate  priesthood  (see  also  Ezek.  xliv.  15).  Upon  Jeremiah 
especially,  whose  call  in  the  thirteenth  year  of  Josiah  (Jer.  i.  2,  xxv.  3)  was  nearly 
contemporary  with  the  appearance  of  Zephaniah  and  the  commencement  of  Josiah's 
reforms,  devolved  at  this  period  the  advocacy  of  the  cause  of  God  (7).  After 
the  renewal  of  the  covenant,  he  undertook,  as  appears  from  xi.  1-8,  by  earnest 
addresses,  to  make  the  people  of  Jerusalem  and  of  the  cities  of  Judah  conscious 
of  the  gravity  of  the  obligation  they  had  taken  upon  themselves.  His  testimony 
now  accompanied  the  fate  of  the  people  till  the  fulfilment  of  the  inevitable  and 
approaching  judgment,  for  the  purpose  of  saving,  by  his  incisive  exhortations  to 
repentance,  any  of  the  demoralized  race  who  might  still  be  willing  to  hearken, 

(1)  The  chief  authorities  for  the  reign  of  Josiah  are  2  Kings  xxii.  sq.,  and  2 
Chron.  xxxiv.  sq.,  in  combining  which  the  account  in  Chronicles  must  be  regard- 
ed as  fundamental  (as  was  first  pointed  out  by  Movers),  2  Kings  having  either 
transposed  the  records  employed,  or  ch.  xxii.  3  sq.  being  a  merely  summary  ac- 
count. 

(2)  Among  the  later  Jews,  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  Vuvva,  was  the  symbol,  and 
its  name  the  name,  of  hell. 

(3)  When  it  is  said  of  this  Passover,  2  Kings  xxiii.  22,  "  There  was  not  holden 
such  a  passover,  from  the  days  of  the  judges  that  judged  Israel,  nor  in  all  the  days 
of  the  kings  of  Israel,  nor  of  the  kings  of  Judah,"  it  is  not  implied,  as  Thenius 
thinks,  that  the  first  celebration  of  the  Passover  after  the  days  of  the  judges  took 
place  in  the  reign  of  Josiah,  but  only  that  a  Passover  so  solemn,  and  in  every  respect 
so  strictly  in  conformity  with  the  law,  had  not  been  held  in  all  this  interval ;  even 
that  held  under  Hezekiah  (§  181,  note  3),  e.g.,  had  not  equalled  it ;  see  Bertheau 
on  2  Chron.  xxxv.  27,  and  Keil,  Apologet.  Vei-such  iiher  die  Chronik,  p.  399  sq. 
Comp.  also  the  similar  passage  concerning  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  Neh.  viii.  17. 
Thenius  (id.)  is  equally  incorrect  when  he  further  asserts  that  Ezekiel  is  the  Jirst, 
and,  on  the  whole,  the  only  prophet  who  mentions  the  Passover  ;  for  Isa.  xxx.  29 
must,  according  to  the  whole  context,  be  referred  to  the  celebration  of  the  Pass- 
over. And  how  would  the  expression  in  Isa.  xxix.  1  apply,  if  only  one  annual 
festival,  viz.  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  had  been  kept  at  Jerusalem  ? 

(4)  [The  position  that  Deuteronomy  was  not  merely  found,  but  was  actually 
composed  shortly  before  the  reformation  under  Josiah.  is  at  present  widely  accept- 
ed and  constitutes  one  of  the  most  important  props  of  the  Keu.'^s  and  Graf  school 


416  THE    DEVELOPMENT    OF   THE   THEOCRACY.  [§  184, 

of  criticism.  Although,  if  this  position  were  established,  it  would  not  prove  the 
correctness  of  that  school,  yet  the  latter  would  certainly  be  disproved  by  the  refu- 
tation of  the  former.  On  the  importance  of  this  position,  comp.  e.g.  Kayser,  "  Der 
gegenwartige  Stand  der  Pentateuchfrage,"  in  the  Jahrl.f.  prote&t.  Theol.  1881,  p. 
340  sqq.,  and  Reuss  §  286].  Ewald  makes  Deuteronomy  to  have  been  written  at 
least  30-40  years  earlier  (in  Egypt),  against  which  are  the  traces  of  Deuteronomic 
laws  found  even  in  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  and  the  use  made  of  Deuteron- 
omy by  the  oldest  prophets  whose  books  have  come  down  to  us.  [On  the  contrary, 
Delitzsch  (in  IjWihiWiiV?,  Zeitschrift,  1881)  endeavor?-  to  sustain  the  view  that  the 
oratorical  and  historical  portion  of  Deuteronomy  was  composed  out  of  wliat  was 
handed  down  by  tradition  in  a  more  concise  form,  which  the  wa'iter  of  Deuterono- 
my, in  the  consciousness  of  spiritual  agreement  with  Moses,  expanded  and  shaped 
in  accordance  with  his  position  and  aim,  and  that  the  legislative  portion  "is  the 
transmitted  legislation  of  the  fortieth  year,  which  the  Deuteronomist  reproduced 
in  accordance  with  the  religious  and  moral  needs  of  his  time."  In  regard  to 
the  date  of  this  process,  he  goes'no  further  than  to  say  that  Deuteronomy,  because 
referred  to  by  the  prophets  a  century  before  the  time  of  Josiah,  is  certainly 
earlier  than  Isaiah.] 

(5)  A  parallel  instance  is  afforded  by  the  non-acquaintance  with  the  Bible 
which  existed  before  the  Reformation,  not  only  among  the  people,  but  also  among 
the  priests, — Luther,  e.g.,  when  a  student  at  Erfurt,  imagining  the  postils  to  con- 
tain the  whole  of  Holy  Scrijiture  :  and  this  notwithstanding  the  existence  of  in- 
numerable copies,  the  Latin  Bible  having  been  more  frequently  printed  than  any 
other  book.  Let  matters  only  be  managed  among  ourselves  for  sixty  years  as 
many  wish,  and  we  should  see  how  much  knowledge  of  the  gospel  would  be  left 
among  the  people. 

(6)  It  was  chiefly  with  the  priests  that  Jeremiah  had  from  the  very  first  to  con- 
tend, i.  18,  and  hence,  though  himself  of  the  priestly  race,  he  was  constantly  the 
object  of  their  hatred  and  persecution  (xi.  21,  xxvi.  7  sqq.). 

(7)  A  faithful  picture  of  the  life  of  a  prophet  may  be  obtained  from  the  Book  of 
Jeremiah. 

§  184. 

Profane  History  at  this  Period  (1).     Death  of  Josiah.     Jehoahaz. 

The  incursion  of  the  Scythians  into  Upper  Asia  (Herodot.  i.  104  sq.),  which 
took  place  in  the  time  of  Josiah,  seems  only  to  have  affected  the  borders  of  Judah, 
and  to  have  caused  no  lasting  danger  to  the  kingdom  itself.  It  is  not  mentioned 
in  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  it  is  more  than  doubtful  wheth- 
er the  prophecy  of  Zephaniah  and  Jer.  iv.  27  refer  to  it.  On  the  other  hand, 
Judah  was  involved  in  the  great  battles  which  arose  in  connection  with  the  fall 
of  Nineveh.  In  Egypt,  Psammetichus,  who  had  strengthened  the  military  power 
of  the  kingdom,  was  succeeded  by  Necho,  who  must  have  been  the  more  inclined 
to  resume  his  lather's  plans  of  conquest,  which,  as  the  account  given  Herodot.  ii. 
157  of  the  siege  of  Ashdod  shows,  were  directed  against  Upper  Asia,  inasmuch 
as  the  state  of  affairs  held  out  the  prospect  of  sharing  with  the  Medes  and  Baby- 
lonians, who  were  attacking  Nineveh,  the  rich  inheritance  of  the  falling  Assyrian 
kingdom.  Necho  appeared  with  an  army  in  Palestine  in  609,  but  with  an  express 
declaration  that  he  was  waging  war  with  Assyria  only  (2  Chron.  xxxv.  31).  Of 
course  he  desired  not  to  be  attacked  in  the  rear  on  his  march  to  the  Euphrates. 
Josiah,  however,  was  unwilling  that  Egyptian  supremacy  should  be  established 
in  Hither  Asia,  and,  advancing  against  Necho,  sought  to  obstruct  his  march.  A 
battle  was  fought  between  them  at  Megiddo,  on  the  plain  of  Jezreel  (comp.  Hero- 


§  185.]  JEHOIAKIM    AND   JEHOIACHIK.  417 

dot.  ii.  159);  the  Jewish  army  was  defeated,  and  Josiah,  raoitally  wounded,  died 
soon  after  at  Jerusalem  (2  Kings  xxiii.  29  ;  2  Chron.  xxxv.  20-25)  (2).  With  him 
fell  the  last  hope  of  the  sinking  state,  on-  which  account  the  mourning  for  Josiah 
became  a  proverb  for  the  heaviest  affliction  (comp.  Zech.  xii.  11).  Necho  did  not, 
it  seems,  at  once  follow  up  his  victory  over  Judah,  but  hastened  to  the  Euphrates. 
Meantime  Jehoahaz  (in  Jer.  xxii.  11  called  Shallum),  a  younger  son  of  Josiah,  was 
raised  by  the  popular  choice  to  the  throne,  upon  which  Eliakim,  the  elder  son,  gave 
himself  up  to  Necho.  Jehoahaz  was,  after  a  reign  of  three  months,  summoned 
to  the  Egyptian  camp  at  Riblah,  on  the  northern  boundary  of  Palestine,  and  there 
imprisoned,  while  Eliakim  was  set  up  in  his  stead  as  an  Egyptian  vassal  king,  by 
the  name  of  Jehoiakim.  Jehoahaz  was  afterward  removed  to  Egypt,  where  he 
died  (2  Chron.  xxxvi.  1-4  ;  2  Kings  xxiii.  31-;55  ;  Jer.  xxii.  10-12). 

(1)  [Comp.  on  this  and  the  following  sections,  Ranke,  i.  p.  113,  sqq.] 

(2)  Jeremiah,  we  are  told,  2  Chron.  xxxv.  25,  "  lamented  for  Josiali  ;  and  all 
the  singing-men  and  singing-women  spake  of  Josiah  in  their  lamentations  to  this 
day." 

§185. 

JehoiaMm  and  JehoiacMn.  (1). 

In  JehoiaMm  Judah  received  a  king  who  surpassed  the  worst  of  his  ancestors 
in  badness.  By  his  love  of  pomp  and  splendor,  his  already  impoverished  people 
were  still  further  exhausted  (comp.  the  description,  Jer.  xxii.  13-19.  Idolatry 
was  again  openly  practised,  and  all  the  reforms  of  Josiah  were  obliterated.  A 
grievous  period  of  affliction  and  persecution  now  set  in  for  Jeremiah,  who,  though 
he  experienced  much  hostility,  and  that  indeed  from  his  own  family,  seems  to 
have  exercised  his  public  ministry  without  restraint  under  Josiah.  At  the  first 
accusation,  indeed,  of  blasphemy,  brought  against  him  after  an  address  in  the 
court  of  the  temple,  in  which  he  had  predicted  the  approaching  destruction  of  the 
city  and  temple,  he  was  acquitted  (1),  while  the  prophet  Urijah,  who  had  fled  to 
Egypt  to  escape  the  wrath  of  the  king,  was  brought  back  and  executed  (Jer.  xxvi). 
But  from  henceforth  disgrace  and  persecution  were  heaped  upon  the  prophet, 
who  undauntedly  and  incessantly  contended  against  the  prevailing  idolatry  and 
wickedness,  against  the  tyranny  of  the  nobles,  and  against  the  degenerate  priests 
and  false  prophets,  who  now  appeared  in  great  numbers,  and  sought  by  their  decep- 
tions to  invalidate  the  testimony  of  the  true  prophet.  After  the  destruction  of  Nine- 
veh in  606  (2),  in  which  the  prophecy  oiNahvm,  probably  a  younger  contemporary 
of  Isaiah,  was  fulfilled,  fMngs  took  a  new  turn  in  Hither  Asia.  The  aspiring  Chal- 
dean power  was  not  inclined  to  allow  the  Egyptians  to  establish  themselves  here  ; 
and  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  (605)  a  decisive  battle,  in  which  Necho  suf- 
fered a  total  defeat,  was  fought  at  Carchemish  (the  Circesium  of  the  Greeks),  a 
fortress  situated  on  the  Euphrates,  comp.  Jer.  xlvi.  1-12,  between  the  Egyptian 
and  Chaldean  armies,  the  latter  of  which  was  commanded  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  the 
son  of  Nabopolassar  (8).  After  this  victory,  all  Hither  Asia  as  far  as  Pelusium 
fell  into  the  hands  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  2  Kings  xxiv.  7,  comp.  with  Jer.  xlvii.  6sq. 
(4).  Jeremiah  now  announced,  in  the  spirit  of  prophecy,  the  purpose  for  which 
the  Chaldean  power  was   appointed  by  God,  and  its  predetermined  duration  of 


418  THE    DEVELOPMENT    OF   THE   THEOCRACY.  f§  18,^. 

seventy  years  (ch.  xxv.)-  I"  tliis  discourse  the  prophet  hands,  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord,  the  cup  of  trembling  to  all  nations  ;  and,  last  of  all,  Sheshach,  i.e.  Babylon, 
is  also  made  to  drink  thereof  (5).  On  the  borders  of  Egypt,  Nebuchadnezzar  re- 
ceived the  intelligence  of  his  father's  death,  and,  according  to  Berosus,  hastened 
immediately  back  to  Babylon,  accompanied  by  only  a  few  followers.  It  cannot  be 
determined  from  the  Book  of  Jeremiah  that  Nebuchadnezzar  came  to  Jerusalem 
during  this  campaign.  The  passage  Jer.  xxxv.  11  (where,  however,  it  is  only 
said  that  Nebuchadnezzar  came  up  into  the  land),  comp,  with  ver.  1,  may  refer  to 
this  period  ;  and  the  day  of  fasting  and  supplication,  mentioned  xxxvi.  9  as 
taking  place  in  the  fifth  year  of  Jehoiakim,  points  to  some  great  peril  as  either 
then  threatening  or  as  just  passed  away  from  Jerusalem.  On  the  other  hand, 
according  to  Dan.  i.  1,  Nebuchadnezzar  took  possession  of  Jerusalem,  and  carried 
off  to  Babylon  a  part  of  the  vessels  of  the  temple  (which  is  confirmed  by  2  Chron. 
xxxvi.  7),  and  certain  noble  youths,— a  statement  agreeing  with  that  of  Berosus 
in  Josephus,  Antiq.  x.  1,  that  the  Chaldean  army  followed  Nebuchadnezzar,  who 
had  hastened  on  before,  bringing  with  it  captives  from  Judah  to  Babylon.  But  the 
date  in  Daniel  which  makes  this  take  place  in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim,  i.e. 
before  the  battle  of  Carchemisl),  cannot  be  easily  combined  with  dates  elsewhere 
given  (6).  Jehoiakim  himself  was,  according  to  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  6,  put  in  chains 
by  Nebuchadnezzar,  to  be  taken  to  Babylon,  but  afterward  left  behind  as  the 
vassal  of  the  Chaldean  empire.  Three  years  after,  Jehoiakim  rebelled  (2  Kings 
xxiv.  1),  and  was  then  attacked  by  a  Chaldean  army  reinforced  from  other  nations, 
and  died,  it  seems,  during  the  war,  599  or  598  b.c.  His  son  Jehoiachin  then  suc- 
ceeded, but  was  dethroned  after  a  reign  of  three  months  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  who 
now  came  against  him  in  person,  and  carried  him  away,  together  with  the  nobles, 
men  of  war,  and  priests,  to  Babylon.  This  was  the  second  deportation,  and  by  it 
the  better  portion  of  the  people  was  taken  into  captivity  ;  see  the  vision  of  the 
two  baskets  of  figs,  Jer.  xxiv.  (7).  Among  those  carried  to  Babylon  was 
EzeTiiel,  who  from  the  fifth  year  of  his  captivity  onward  filled  the  office  of 
prophet  to  the  exiles  at  Chebar,  §  188.  Nebuchadnezzar  made  Mattaniah,  a  still 
remaining  son  of  Josiah,  his  vassal-king,  changing  his  name  to  Zedehiah  (2  Kings 
xxiv.  8-17  ;  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  9  sq.  ;  Jer.  xxii.  24-30). 

(1)  [On  this  and  the  following  section,  comp.  Schrader,  art.  "  Nebukadnezar" 
in  Riehm.] 

(2)  This  year  has  been  arrived  at  after  much  discussion  :  formerly  the  fall  of 
Nineveh  was  placed  as  esirly  as  625. 

(3)  Jeremiah  thus  triumphantly  announces  the  overthrow  of  their  ancient 
enemy,  xlvi.  10-26  :  "This  is  the  day  of  the  Lord  God  of  hosts,  a  day  of  ven- 
geance. .  .  .  The  Lord  God  of  hosts  hath  a  sacrifice  in  the  north  country  by  the 
river  Euphrates.  Go  up  into  Gilead,  and  fetch  balm,  O  virgin  daughter  of 
Egypt ;  in  vain  shalt  thou  use  many  medicines,  for  thou  shalt  not  be  cured.  The 
nations  have  heard  of  thy  shame,  and  thy  cry  hath  filled  the  land." 

(4)  Jer.  xlvii.  6  sq. :  "  O  thou  sword  of  the  Lord,  how  long  will  it  be  ere  thou 
be  quiet  ?  put  up  thyself  into  thy  scabbard,  rest,  and  be  still.  How  can  it  be 
quiet,  seeing  the  Lord  hath  given  it  a  charge  against  Ashkelon,  and  against  the 
seashore?  there  hath  He  appointed  it." 

(5)  In  Jeremiah  is  found  the  so-called  AtTibash.  This  is  the  name  of  the  figure 
by  which  the  alphabet  is  used  backward,  for  the  purpose  of  transposing  words. 
Thus  r>  is  used  for  N,  ^  for  3,  etc.     This  makes  "^^^  the  mystic  name  for  ^53. 


8  180.]        ZEDEKIAH— FALL  OF  THK  STATE  AND  OF  JERUSALEM,  419 

(6)  It  is  one  of  the  most  difficult  questions  with  reference  to  tlie  Book  of 
Daniel,  how  the  statement  with  which  it  begins  is  to  be  understood.  If  all 
artifices  are  rejected,  a  chronological  error  nnist  be  admitted.  |But  see  Zockler's 
Introduction  to  Daniel  in  Lange,  p.  32,  note  2,  where  the  proleptical  view  is  stated 
and  defended.— D.]  Bertheau  (on  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  6)  is  inclined,  like  Gumpach, 
to  find  the  inaccuracy  not  in  Daniel,  but  in  Jeremiah's  statement  concerning  the 
batUe  ofCarchemish,  xlvi.  2,  which  seems  to  me  rash.  In  fact,  this  is  a  point 
which  will  never  be  cleared  up  ;  see  also  Ziindel,  Krit.  Untersnch.  iiber  die  Ahfas- 
sungszeit  des  Buehes  Daniel,  18G1,  p.  It)  sqq.  On  the  other  difficulties  found  in 
the  statements  concerning  Jehoiakim,  see  especially  M.  von  Niebuhr,  Oesch.  des 
Assurs  und  Bahels,  p.  375  sq. 

(7)  The  one  basket,  filled  with  good  first-ripe  figs,  represents  the  captives  in 
Babylon  as  the  better  part ;  the  other,  filled  with  bad  figs,  signifies  the  people 
still  remaining  in  Judah. 

§  186. 

ZedeTciah.     Fall  of  the  State  and  of  Jerusalem. 

ZedeMah,  the  last  king  of  Judah,  was  a  weak  prince,  who  lived  in  shameful 
dependence  upon  the  low  upstarts  who  had  now  seized  upon  power.  He  had 
sworn  fealty  to  Nebuchadnezzar  (2  Chron.  xxxvi.  13),  and  had  testified  his  sub- 
mission to  him,  both  by  an  embassy  in  the  beginning  of  his  reign  (Jer.  xxix.  3) 
and  a  personal  visit  to  Babylon  in  the  fourth  year  (li.  59).  It  was  then  that 
Jeremiah  wrote  his  prophecy  of  the  future  destruction  of  Babylon,  ch.  1.  sq.,  when, 
as  is  therein  declared,  the  hammer  of  the  world  should  be  broken  in  pieces  by 
a  mightier,  and  delivered  it  to  the  royal  courier  (nnijp-1iy,  ver.  59,  is  the  official 
name  ;  translated,  a  quiet  prince,  A.  V.)  to  read  it  in  Babylon,  and  then  to  cast 
the  roll,  after  binding  a  stone  to  it,  into  the  river  Eujjhrates  (1).  But  the  king's 
party  was  meditating  a  revolt  from  Babylon,  and  a  consultation  with  the  ambas- 
sadors of  certain  neighboring  states  took  place  at  Jerusalem  at  this  very  time 
(Jer.  xxvii.  3)  (2).  In  vain  did  Jeremiah  warn  them,  by  repeatedly  declaring  the 
Divine  appointment  of  Nebuchadnezzar  to  be  the  instrument  of  judgment  to 
Judah  and  the  surrounding  nations  (3).  The  lying  jn'ophets,  who  both  in  Jerusa- 
lem and  among  the  Jews  already  in  captivity  predicted  the  speedily  approaching 
end  of  the  Babylonian  servitude,  found  more  willing  listeners  (Jer.  xxvii.-xxix.) 
(4).  In  the  ninth  year  of  his  reign,  Zedekiah  at  last  openly  broke  his  oath,  and 
concluded  an  alliance  with  the  Egyptian  king  Hophra  (elsewhere  called  Apries), 
Then  Ezelciel  uttered  from  his  captivity  his  threatening  words  concerning  Jerusa- 
lem,— ch.  xvii.  and  xxi.  belonging  to  this  period  (5).  Before  the  Egyptian 
monarch  had  yet  completed  his  preparations,  Nebuchadnezzar  appeared  with  an 
army  in  Palestine  (Jer.  xxxiv.  1-7)  ;  the  country  towns  w^ere  destroyed,  the  fort- 
resses surrounded,  and  Jerusalem  prepared  for  an  obstinate  resistance.  Jeremiah 
counselled  the  surrender  of  the  city.  But  when  the  Chaldean  army  marched 
against  the  now  advancing  Hophra,  the  newly  awakened  arrogance  of  the  ruling 
party  no  longer  heeded  any  warning.  Jeremiah  was  cast  into  prison,  but 
secretly  released  by  the  king,  and  kept  in  the  court  of  the  prison  (ch.  xxxvii.). 
When,  on  the  return  of  the  Chaldean  army,  he  renewed  his  threatening  announce- 
ments, he  was  cast  by  the  princes  into  a  dungeon  that  he  might  there  perish  with 
hunger.     Being  again  delivered  by  the  king,  he  in  vain  entreated  him  to  sur- 


430  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  THEOCEACY.         [§  186. 

render  to  the  Chaldees,  eh.  xxxviii.  While,  however,  notwithstanding  the  heroic 
defence  of  the  city,  its  danger  was  daily  increasing,  and  famine  was  raging 
terribly  among  the  besieged  (comp.  Lam.  ii.  20,  iv.  9  sq.),  the  voice  of  the 
prophet  was  lifted  up  in  the  midst  of  the  misery  that  surrounded  him,  to  proclaim 
with  exulting  confidence  the  glorious  future  awaiting  the  chosen  people  and  the 
city  of  God,  and  to  prophesy,  while  the  ancient  form  of  the  theocracy  was  being 
destroyed  and  the  throne  of  David  trampled  under  foot,  concerning  the  new 
covenant  and  the  righteous  Branch  of  David,  Jer.  xxx.-xxxiii.  (6).  After  a  siege 
of  eighteen  months,  a  breach  was  made  in  the  fortifications.  Zedekiah,  with  a 
portion  of  his  forces,  endeavored  to  escape,  but  was  brought  back  to  Nebuchad- 
nezzar at  Riblah,  and,  after  his  sons  had  been  executed  before  his  eyes,  was 
deprived  of  his  sight  and  taken  in  chains  to  Babylon,  xxxix.  1-7  ;  3  Kings  xxv. 
1-7  ;  comp.  also  Ezek.  xii.  13  (7).  The  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  third 
deportation  of  the  people  was  effected  by  the  Chaldee  general  Nebuzaradan  (2 
Kings  xxv.  8  sqq.;  Jer.  xxxix.  8  sqq.),  588  B.C.  The  city  and  temple  were 
burning  from  the  seventh  day  of  the  month  Ab  (the  fifth  month  of  the  Mosaic 
year)  till  the  tenth,  when  their  destruction  was  completed,  according  to  Josephus, 
on  the  same  day  of  the  month  on  which  the  temple  was,  658  years  afterward, 
burned  by  Titus  (8).  With  ferocious  exultation,  the  neighboring  states,  and 
especially  the  Edomites,  hastened  to  the  spot,  to  feast  their  eyes  iipon  the  spec- 
tacle of  the  fall  of  this  detested  people,  Ps.  cxxxvii.  7,  Lam.  iv.  21,  Ezek.  xxxv. 
15,  xxxvi.  5.  The  fugitives  were  pursued  to  the  mountains,  and  laid  wait  for  in 
the  wilderness.  Lam.  iv.  19,  and  had  to  "  eat  their  bread  with  the  peril  of  their 
lives,"  V.  9  (8). 

(1)  A  symbolical  transaction,  by  which  it  was  meant  to  declare  that,  as  surely 
as  this  prophecy  was  now  lying  in  the  bed  of  the  river,  so  surely  was  the  fate  of 
Babylon  determined. 

(2)  It  is  acknowledged  that  in  Jer.  xxvii.  1,  where  we  read  Jehoiakim  instead 
of  Zedekiah,  we  have  either  a  clerical  error,  or  that  this  preface  belongs  to 
some  other  passage.  Vers.  3  and  12  expressly  state  that  this  transaction  occurred 
under  Zedekiah.  According  to  xxviii.  1,  it  must  be  assumed  that  the  congress 
took  place  in  the  fourth  year  of  Zedekiah. 

(3)  .Jeremiah  now  again  advocated  that  policy  of  endurance  and  waiting  which 
forbade  all  arbitrary  self-help,  and  regarded  faithful  adherence  to  an  oath,  even 
though  taken  to  the  heathen  opjjressor,  as  an  absolute  duty. 

(4)  According  to  Jer.  xxviii. ,  the  special  opponent  of  Jeremiah  was  the  false 
prophet  Hananiah,  to  whom,  when,  though  warned,  he  persevered  in  his  lying 
predictions,  Jeremiah,  in  conformity  with  the  penalty  to  be  inflicted  on  false  proph- 
ets (Deut.  xviii.  20),  announced  his  approaching  death,  which  actually  ensued. 
How  emphatically  Jeremiah  warned  the  Jews  already  in  captivity  against  dema- 
gogues appearing  in  the  guise  of  prophets,  is  seen  Jer.  xxix.,  where  ^Aff&,  Zedekiah, 
and  Shemaiah  are  named  as  such  lying  prophets  ;  comp.  Ezek.  xiii.,  where  ver.  9 
shows  that  prophets  appearing  among  the  exiles  are  intended.  It  is  worthy  of 
note  that,  according  to  vers.  17-23,  false  prophesying  was  especially  practised  by 
Jewish  women,  who  made  a  lucrative  traffic  of  predictions  in  the  name  of 
Jehovah. 

(5)  See  e.g.  Ezek.  xvii.  15  sqq.  :  "  Shall  he  prosper?  shall  he  escape  that  doeth 
such  things?  or  shall  he  break  the  covenant,  and  be  delivered?  As  I  live,  saith 
the  Lord  God,  surely  in  the  place  where  the  king  dwelleth  that  made  him  king, 
whose  oath  he  despised,  and  whose  covenant  he  brake,  even  with  him  in  the 
midst  of  Babylon  shall  he  die." 


§  187.]  GEDALIAH   AHD  THE   REMNANT  OF  THE   PEOPLE.  421 

(6)  It  is  said  e.g.  Jer.  xxxiii.  10  sq.  :  "Again  shall  be  licard  in  this  place,  of  which 
ye  say,  it  is  desolate,  .  .  .  the  voice  of  joy,  and  the  voice  of  gladness,  .  .  .  the 
voice  of  them  that  say.  Praise  the  Lord  of  hosts  :  for  the  Lord  is  good  ;  for  His 
mercy  endureth  for  ever." 

(7)  Ezekiel  declares,  xii.  13,  of  Zedekiah,  "I  will  bring  him  to  Babylon,  to  the 
land  of  the  Chaldeans  ;  yet  he  shall  not  see  it,  and  he  shall  die  there,"' — a  prediction 
which  was  in  this  manner  fulfilled. 

(8)  Many  place  Obad.  10-14  here  ;  but  I  am  among  those  who  regard  Obadiah 
as  an  earlier  prophet.  According  to  Jer.  Hi.  28,  those  carried  away  under  Jehoia- 
chin  amounted  to  3028  ;  while  in  2  Kings  xxiv.  10-lC,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
numbers  are  computed  at  18,000.  In  Jer.  lii.  29,  it  is  said  that  at  the  last  carrying 
into  captivity  only  832  were  taken  from  Jerusalem.  Probably  only  heads  of 
families  are  reckoned  in  the  passage  in  Jeremiah.  It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at 
that  the  numbers  were  no  greater,  when  it  is  remembered  how  many  had  per- 
ished by  famine  and  the  sword,  and  what  numbers  had  fled  from  the  city. 

§187. 

Oedaliah  (1)  and  the  Remnant  of  the  People. 

A  remnant  of  the  people,  among  whom  was  Jeremiah,  who  was  by  Nebuchad- 
nezzar's express  command  treated  with  the  greatest  respect  (Jer.  xxxix,  11-14, 
xl.  1-6),  was  left  in  the  land  ;  and  fields  and  vineyards  were  assigned  to  them 
by  Nebuzaradan,  xxxix.  10.  Nebuchadnezzar  placed  over  them  as  his  viceroy, 
Oedaliah  a  son  of  the  prince  Ahikam,  who  appears,  2  Kings  xxii.  12,  in  high 
ofiicial  position  under  Josiah,  and  to  whom  Jeremiah  owed  his  deliverance  when 
accused  under  Jehoiakim  (Jer.  xxiv.  24,  comp.  ver.  16)  (2).  Gedaliah,  with  a 
small  Chaldee  garrison,  took  up  his  abode  at  Mizpah,  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Jerusalem  (3).  After  the  departure  of  the  Chaldean  army  (see  Jer.  xl.  7  sqq.,  2 
Kings  XXV.  22  sqq.),  a  great  number  of  Jews,  who  had  by  reason  of  the  war  been 
scattered  in  the  neighboring  countries,  returned  to  Judea.  Certain  Jewish  cap- 
tains also,  and  others  who  had  borne  arms  against  the  Chaldeans,  settled  at 
Mizpah,  where  they  were  kindly  received  by  Gedaliah,  who  promised  them  pardon 
and  protection  if  they  would  submit  to  the  Chaldeans.  The  viceroyship  of 
Gedaliah,  however,  which  had  held  out  to  a  considerable  portion  of  the  people 
the  prospect  of  the  peaceable  possession  of  their  native  soil,  lasted  only  two 
months.  One  of  these  captains,  Ishmael  the  son  of  Nethaniah,  of  the  seed  royal, 
instigated  by  Baalis  king  of  the  Ammonites,  placed  himself  at  the  head  of  a  con- 
spiracy against  Gedaliah,  who,  not  esteeming  so  base  a  treachery  possible,  and 
therefore  rejecting  the  warning  given  him  of  it,  was,  together  with  the  Chaldeans 
and  Jews  dwelling  with  him  at  Mizpah,  slain  during  a  banquet  at  w^hich  he  was 
entertaining  the  conspirators  (the  circumstances  are  related  Jer.  xli.  1  sqq.,  comp. 
2  Kings  XXV.  25)  (4).  The  Jews  who  were  hardly  yet  settled,  fearing  the  ven- 
geance of  Nebuchadnezzar,  determined,  in  spite  of  the  warnings  of  Jeremiah,  to 
emigrate  to  Egypt,  whither  the  prophet  also  followed  them.  Surrendering  them- 
selves in  Egypt  to  the  w^orship  of  idols,  to  the  neglecting  of  which  they  attrib- 
uted the  misfortunes  of  Judea  (see  the  remarkable  passage,  Jer.  xliv.  17  sqq.), 
Jeremiah  was  here  also  constrained  to  exercise  his  office  of  reprover,  and  probably 
terminated  his  storm-tossed  life  in  that  country  (ch.  xl.-xliv.  belong  to  this  period) 
(5).     His  predictions  (xliii.  8-14,  xliv.  80)  were  fulfilled,  for  in  the  fifth  year  after 


422  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  THEOCRACY.        [§  188. 

the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  (584),  Nebuchadnezzar  invaded  Egypt,  slew  its  king, 
and  again  carried  away  a  host  of  Jews  to  Babylon  ;  see  Josephus,  Ant.  x.  9,  7  (6). 
Whether  this  is  the  deportation  mentioned  Jer.  li.  30,  or  whether  the  latter  refers 
to  a  remnant  still  existing  in  Judea,  cannot  be  determined.  At  all  events  Judea 
lay  desolate  (comp.  Zech.  vii.  14  ;  3  Chron.  xxxvi.  21),  so  far  as  it  was  not  occu- 
pied by  the  neighboring  nations,  particularly  the  Philistines  and  Edomites.  The 
latter  especially,  who  had  long  coveted  the  territory  of  Israel  (Ezek.  xxxv.  10), 
must  have  taken  possession  of  the  southern  part  of  the  country  ;  see  the  Greek 
Ezra,  tlie  so-called  third  book  of  Esdras,  iv.  50  (7). 

(1)  Comp.  my  article  "  Gedaliah"  in  Herzog's  Real-EiicyMop,  vol.  iv. 

(2)  Undoubtedly  Gedaliah  also  favored  Jeremiah.  He  was  one  of  that  party 
in  Jerusalem  who,  according  to  the  word  of  that  prophet,  regarded  Zedekiah's 
revolt  from  Nebuchadnezzar  as  a  criminal  breach  of  faith,  and  considered  sub- 
mission to  the  Chaldees  the  only  means  of  safety.  That  Nebuchadnezzar  well 
knew  those  Jews  who  were  thus  minded,  is  shown  by  the  friendly  treatment 
Jeremiah  experienced. 

(3)  That  a  place  of  worship  was,  as  some  affirm,  immediately  set  up  in  Mizpah, 
cannot  be  inferred  from  Jer.  xli.  5.  By  the  house  of  the  Lord  there  mentioned  is 
probably  rather  to  be  understood  the  destroyed  temple  ;  see  Hitzig  in  lac,  and 
Bertheau  in  his  work,  Zur  Oeschichte  der  Isrnellten,  p.  383. 

(4)  The  occasion  of  this  conspiracy  can  scarcely  have  been  that  Ishmael,  as 
Josephus  thinks  {Ant.  x.  9.  3),  himself  aspired  to  the  government  of  the  Jews  ; 
see,  on  the  other  hand,  the  article  cited,  p.  701.  The  reason  for  the  deed  is 
rather  to  be  sought  in  the  odium  incurred  by  Gedaliah  as  the  friend  of  the 
Chaldeans. 

(5)  According  to  patristic  tradition,  Jeremiah  was  stoned  by  his  fellow-country- 
men. Hated  and  abhorred  during  his  life,  his  name  was  honored  after  his 
death  in  the  legends  and  hopes  of  his  people.  Compare  the  dream  of  Judas  Mac- 
cabaeus,  2  Mace.  xv.  14  sq.,  also  Matt.  xvi.  14,  according  to  which  his  appearance 
seems  to  have  been  expected  before  that  of  the  Messiah. 

(G)  An  account,  the  correctness  of  which  has  been  impugned,  but  upon  insufficient 
grounds.  [The  fact  of  an  invasion  of  Egypt,  and  perhaps  even  a  second  time,  by 
Nebuchadnezzar  is  now  made  tolerably  certain  by  an  Egyptian  and  a  cuneiform 
inscription,  although  the  former  gives  the  year  572,  the  latter  568.  See  Schrader, 
art.  "  Nebukadnezar  "  in  Riehm.] 

(7)  Hebron  seems  to  have  been  possessed  by  them  not  only  in  the  Maccabsean 
times,  but  is  even  regarded  by  Josephus  as  belonging  to  Idumea  Bell.  Jud.  iv, 
9.7. 


FIFTH  DIYISIOK. 

HISTORY  OF    THE  JEWISH    NATION  FROM  THE    BABYLONIAN   CAP- 
TIVITY TO  THE  CESSATION  OF  PROPHECY  (ABOUT  400  B.C.) 

§  188. 
Condition  of  the  People  and  Agency  of  the  Prophets  during  the  Gaptimty. 

The  condition  of  the  Jeios  in  captivity  does  not  seem,  so  far  as  we  can  ascertain 
from  the  writings  of  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  to  have  been  one  of  special  oppression 
(comp.  e.g.  xxix.  5-7).     The  people  dwelt  apart,  maintaining  their  tribal  dis- 


§  188.]     co]srDiTio]sr  of  the  people  duriKg  the  captivity.  423 

tinction,  under  their  own  elders.  In  the  apocryphal  narrative  of  Susannah,  also, 
it  is  assumed  that  the  Jews  in  Babylon  formed  a  special  community,  with  a  juris- 
diction of  its  own.  A  true  Israelite  could  indeed  know  no  real  happiness  at  a 
distance  from  the  Holy  Laud  (Ps.  cxxxvii.)  (1).  To  such  a  one  it  would  be  a 
state  of  continued  mourning  "  to  eat  defiled  bread  among  the  Gentiles;"  Ezek. 
iv.  13,  comp.  with  Hos.  ix.  7  sq.  (see  §  136,  2,  with  note  2).  But  the  same 
word  of  prophecy,  whose  truth  was  proved  by  the  judgment  which  had  fallen 
upon  them,  exhorted  them  to  wait  with  patience  for  the  hour  when  the  deliver- 
ance of  Israel  should  appear  in  the  doom  of  Babylon.  For  this  future  deliverance 
was  Israel  to  be  preserved  in  captivity,  to  be  treated  like  the  unfaithful  wife, 
who,  though  put  away  by  her  husband,  might  not  be  married  to  any  other,  and 
therefore  received  no  bill  of  divorce  (Isa.  1.  1,  comp.  with  Hos.  iii.).  In  many, 
indeed,  the  propensity  to  idolatry  was  not  even  yet  eradicated  by  the  judgments 
that  had  overtaken  them  (see  Ezek.  xiv.  3  sqq.,  and  still  later,  Isa.  Ixv.  3  sqq.). 
This  made  it  all  the  more  needful  to  keep  the  people  in  as  decided  a  state  of 
separation  as  possible  from  their  heathen  surroundings.  And  as  the  Levitical 
worship  could  not  be  carried  on  upon  heathen  soil  (see  Hos.  ix.  4),  and  the  sac- 
rifice of  prayer  had  now  to  take  the  place  of  animal  sacrifices,  it  was  important 
to  keep  all  the  more  strictly  to  tliose  legal  institutions  whose  observance  was  not 
connected  with  the  Holy  Land.  Such  ordinances  would  form  a  salutary  fence  for 
the  people  thus  thrown  in  contact  with  the  heathen,  and  a  protection  against  a 
heathen  mode  of  life  ;  and  this  consideration  explains  why  Ezekiel  so  emphatically 
insisted  on  the  observance  of  the  ceremonial  law,  anci  especially  on  the  sanctifi- 
cationof  the  sabbath.  The  example  of  Ezekiel,  comp.  xiv.  1,  xx.  1,  also  viii.  1,  xi. 
25,  xxiv.  19,  also  shows  that  now,  when  the  two  other  theocratic  offices,  the  king- 
ship and  priesthood,  were  annulled,  the  leadership  of  the  people  devolved  exclu- 
sively on  ^Q  profliets^  who,  by  the  proclamation  of  God's  word  and  the  delivery  of 
prophetic  counsel,  afforded  to  the  dispersion  a  point  of  support  similar  to  that  which 
they  had  furnished  to  the  pious  in  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes.  Perhaps  it 
was  from  the  custom  which  now  arose  among  the  Israelites,  of  gathering  around 
a  prophet  to  hear  the  word  of  God,  that  synagogues  (j"'?.??  ^^'^)  originated.  It 
was  during  the  captivity,  according  to  Zech.  vii.  3,  5,  viii.  19,  that  four  days  of 
mournful  commemoration,  kept  by  fasting,  were  added  to  the  celebration  of  the 
Sabbath,  viz.,  1st,  The  ninth  day  of  the  fourth  month,  because  on  this  day  (2  Kings 
XXV.  3,  Jer.  Iii.  6  sq.)  the  Chaldeans  eutered  Jerusalem  ;  2d,  The  already-mentioned 
tenth  of  the  fifth  month  (Jer.  Iii.  12)  (subsequently  exchanged  for  the  ninth),  in 
remembrance  of  the  destruction  of  the  city  and  temple  ;  3d,  A  fast  in  the  seventh 
month  (Tisri),  in  remembrance  of  the  murder  of  Gedaliah  (2  Kings  xxv.  25,  Jer. 
xli.  1  ;  and  also,  4th,  A  fast  on  the  tenth  day  of  the  tenth  month  (Tebeth),  be- 
cause on  this  day  (2  Kings  xxv.  1,  Jer.  Iii.  4)  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  commenced. 
But  the  prophets  of  God  had,  during  the  captivity,  a  mission  to  fulfil  to  the 
heathen  also.  By  their  transportation  to  a  heathen  land,  nay,  to  the  chief  seat  of 
heathen  divination,  the  light  of  the  Divine  word  was  set  up  among  the  Gentiles 
themselves,  and  an  opportunity  given  to  their  soothsayers  and  augurs  to  try 
their  powers  against  the  revelation  of  the  living  God.  The  conflict  waged  by 
Jehovah  against  the  gods  of  the  land,  when  He  delivered  His  people  out  of  Egypt, 
was  renewed   with  increased  intensity  at  Babylon.     The  Gentile  world  was   to 


424  THE   DEVELOPMENT   OF  THE  THEOCRACY.  [§  189. 

learn  by  experience  where  the  knowledge  of  the  Divine  counsel  which  guides  the 
destinies  of  nations,  and  the  foretelling  of  things  yet  future  were  to  be  found,  and 
to  judge  by  this  standard  of  the  real  existence  of  its  gods.  To  carry  on  this  strug- 
gle was  the  special  vocation  of  Daniel,  who  was  educated  at  the  Babylonian  court 
in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Chaldees,  and  raised  to  the  highest  honors  ;  while  the  same 
contest  is  presented  in  the  prophetic  book  of  Isaiah,  ch.  xl.-lxvi.  From  this  it 
is  evident  that  the  oppression  of  the  people  on  the  part  of  the  Chaldean  rulers 
must  have  greatly  increased  during  the  course  of  the  captivity  ;  see  xlvii.  6,  li. 
13,  23  (2),  comp.  also  xiv.  8.  To  this  two  causes  may  have  contributed,— on  the 
cue  hand,  the  rebellious  conduct  of  such  Jews  as  were  not  willing  to  wait  patiently 
for  the  hour  of  deliverance  promised  by  God,  but  resorted  to  remedies  of  their 
own,  comp.  the  threat  ch.  1.  11  ;  on  the  other,  the  undaunted  testimony  borne 
by  the  prophets  against  heathenism  as  well  as  against  the  rebellious  faction  among 
the  Jews  themselves,  comp.  e.g.  Ivii.  3  sqq.  The  whole  prophetic  delineation  of 
the  servant  of  God,  tried  and  glorified  by  sufferings  (ch.  xl.  sqq.),  is  based  upon 
that  experience  of  suffering  in  captivity  by  which  the  elect  remnant  of  the  nation 
was  purified. 

(1)  Ps.  cxxxvii.  4-6  :  "How  shall  we  sing  the  Lord's  song  in  a  strange  land? 
If  I  forget  thee,  O  Jerusalem,  let  my  right  hand  forget  her  cunning.  If  I  do  not 
remember  thee,  let  my  tongue  cleave  to  the  roof  of  my  mouth  ;  if  I  prefer  not 
Jerusalem  above  my  chief  joy." 

(2)  In  Isa.  xlvii.  6,  Babylon  is  thus  addressed  :  "  Thou  didst  show  them  no 
mercy  :  even  upon  the  ancient  hast  thou  laid  very  heavily  thy  yoke."  In  li.  13 
it  is  said  to  the  people  :  "  Thou  hast  feared  continually  every  day  because  of  the 
fury  of  the  oppressor  when  he  maketh  ready  to  destroy." 

§  189. 

Deliverance  and  Return  of  Jews  from  Babylon.      Commencement  of  the  Rebuilding  of 

the   Temple. 

After  Cyrus  had  ascended  the  Medo-Babylonian  throne,  he  gave  the  Jews  per- 
mission, in  the  first  year  of  his  reign,  to  return  to  Palestine  and  to  rebuild  their 
destroyed  temple  at  Jerusalem  (2  Chron.  xxxvi.  22  sq.,  Ezra  i.l  sq.).  He  called  upon 
the  other  inhabitants  of  places  in  which  Israelites  had  settled  to  assist  the  emigrants, 
and  to  furnish  them  with  contributions  (i.  4)  for  their  temple,  he  himself  restoring 
to  them  the  sacred  vessels  (i.  7  sqq.)  which  Nebuchadnezzar  had  carried  away,  and 
assigning  them  not  only  a  subsidy  from  the  royal  revenues  for  the  rebuilding 
of  their  temple,  but  also  materials  for  the  restored  sacrificial  worship  (vi.  4,  8  sqq.). 
According  to  Josephus,  Antiq.  xi.  1.  2,  Cyrus  was  induced  to  act  thus  by  being 
shown  the  prophecy  in  Isa.  xliv.  28,  which  Josephus  holds  to  have  been  uttered 
210  years  previously  (1).  However  unfounded  this  statement  may  be  regarded, 
as  it  is  by  many,  who  suggest  that  Josephus  is  an  uncertain  authority  for  such 
matters,  it  cannot  reasonably  be  denied  that  some  such  occurrence  must  be  pre- 
supposed, to  explain  the  remarkable  edict  of  the  heathen  monarch  (2).  If  such 
an  Israelite  as  Daniel  was  really  exercising  high  authority  at  the  Babylonian  court, 
all  is  easily  understood.  And  that  Cyrus  should  have  taken  account  of  a  prophecy 
relating  to  himself  will  be  found  probable,  when  it  is  considered  what  interest 


§  189.]         DELIVEEANCE   AND   KETUKN   FROM   BABYLON",  ETC.  425 

Nebuchadnezzar  took  in  the  prophetic  agency  of  Jeremiah ;  and,  to  cite  a  later 
example,  how  Josephus  managed  to  get  into  the  favor  of  Vespasian,  Bell.  Jud.  iii. 
8.  9.  The  explanation,  however,  of  the  edict  of  Cyrus  proposed  e.g.  by  Winer 
{RealiDorterhuch,  3d  ed.  i.  p.  241),  viz.  that  it  appeared  to  Cyrus  that  the  space 
occupied  by  the  Jewisli  colony  might  be  more  advantageously  employed  for  the 
restraint  and  chastisement  of  other  conquered  nations,  or  that  he  desired  to 
secure  a  basis  of  operations  for  his  projected  conquest  of  Egypt,  etc.,  is  utterly 
erroneous.  To  assert  this  is  entirely  to  overlook  the  fact  that  the  permission  of 
Cyrus,  as  afterveard  that  of  Darius  Hystaspis,  related  solely  to  the  restoration  of 
the  temple,  which  involved  also  to  a  certain  degree  that  of  the  city  of  Jerusalem, 
but  by  no  means  extended  to  the  building  of  the  walls  iind  fortifications  (see 
Auberlen,  The  PropJiecies  of  Daniel,  p.  117).  It  is  obvious,  both  from  the  state  of 
the  case  and  the  further  course  of  events,  that  the  Persian  kings  showed  n  o  kind 
of  inclination  to  restore  Jerusalem  as  a  fortress,  in  .which  character  it  had  already 
proved  so  difficult  to  conquer,  and  thus  afford  to  a  nation  so  notorious  for  its  ten- 
dency to  revolt  a  firm  basis  of  operations  (3). 

The  1'eturn  from  Babylon  took  place  under  the  conduct  of  Zerubhdbel,  the  grandson 
(4)  of  King  Jehoiachin  (who,  according  to  2  Kings  xxv.  27  sqq.,  died  in  Baby- 
lon), and  therefore  a  scion  of  the  house  of  David,  and,  according  to  Ezra  i.  8,  the 
t^'K'J,  or  hereditary  prince  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  who  was  made  the  Persian  vice- 
roy or  nn3  (Pasha)  (5).  With  him  was  associated,  as  spiritual  ruler  of  the  people, 
the  high  priest  Joshua,  or,  as  his  name  is  also  -written,  Jeshua.  Under  the 
direction  of  these  men,  42,360  Israelites.  Ezra  ii.  64,  Neh.  vii.  66,  reckoned  from 
twelve  years  old  and  upward,  as  we  are  told  in  the  Greek  Book  of  Ezra,  v.  41, 
with  above  7000  bondmen  and  bondwomen,  returned  to  Palestine.  These  be- 
longed for  the  most  part  to  the  tribe  of  Judah,  and  were  accompanied  by 
comparatively  many  priests  (6)  and  strikingly  few  Levites.  Individuals  belong- 
ing to  other  tribes  may  also  have  been  found  among  the  band.  That  these  re- 
turning Israelites  regarded  themselves  as  the  representatives  of  the  twelve  tribes, 
was  afterward  shown  by  the  offering  of  the  twelve  goats  as  a  sin-offering  for  all 
Israel  at  the  consecration  of  the  temple,  Ezra  vi.  17  (7).  The  Jewish  tradition  in 
the  Babylonian  Talmud,  that  only  the  meanest  and  poorest  returned,  while  the 
rich  and  noble  remained  at  Babylon,  may  be  relatively  true,  and  also  corresponds 
with  the  prophetic  announcement,  Zeph.  iii.  12.  Still  the  accounts  of  the  con- 
tributions to  the  temple  (Ezra  ii.  68,  69  ;  Neh.  vii.  70-72)  show  that  there  were 
also  persons  of  considerable  wealth  among  those  who  came  back.  The  returned 
Jews  at  first  assembled  for  the  worship  of  God  at  an  altar  set  up  for  the  purpose, 
Ezra  iii.  2,  and  regular  sacrificial  service  began,  according  to  ver.  6,  on  the  first 
day  of  the  seventh  month.  It  is  possible  that  this  circumstance  may  have  given 
rise  to  the  celebration  of  the  first  of  Tisri,  the  new-moon  Sabbath,  as  the  first 
day  of  the  civil  year  ;  and  we  afterward  find  a  solemn  celebration  of  this  day  by 
the  reading  of  the  law  by  Ezra,  and  the  rejoicings  connected  therewith,  spoken 
of  Neh.  viii.  1,  9-12  (8).  Preparations  were  immediately  made  for  the  rebuilding 
of  the  temple  (Ezra  ii.  68  sq.,  iii.  7-9).  It  was  a  time  of  hearty  enthusiasm,  which 
showed  itself  more  especially  at  the  laying  of  the  foundations  of  the  tenii)le  in  the 
second  month  of  the  following  year  (iii.  3-10).  Perliaps  the  anonymous  psalms 
of  rejoicing,  xcvi.-xcix.,  which  proclaim  the  speedy  coming  of  the  Lord  to  judge 


426  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  THEOCKACT.         [§  189. 

the  heathen  and  to  set  up  His  kingdom  upon  earth,  belong  to  this  period.  Ps. 
cii.  14  sq.  is  a  testimony  to  the  hopes  then  entertained  (9),  The  newly  settled 
nation  was,  however,  to  experience  grievous  trials.  The  Samaritans,  whose  de- 
sire to  obtain  a  share  in  the  new  temple  was  rejected,  revenged  themselves  by 
intriguing  at  the  Persian  court  to  hinder  the  building,  which  now  ceased  till  the 
second  year  of  Darius  Hystaspis  (Ezra  iv.  1-5). 

(1)  In  Isa.  xliv.  28,  the  Lord  says  of  Cyrus  :  "He  is  my  shepherd,  and  shall  per- 
form all  ray  pleasure,  even  saying  to  Jerusalem,  Thou  shalt  be  built,  and  to  the 
temple,  Thy  foundation  shall  be  laid." 

(2)  The  edict  Ezra  i.  2  begins  thus  :  "Jehovah,  the  God  of  heaven,  hath  given 
me  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth,  and  He  hath  charged  me  to  build  Him  an  house 
at  Jerusalem  which  is  in  Judah."  Herodotus  also  makes  oracles  play  a  consider- 
able part  in  the  history  of  the  life  of  Cyrus. 

(3)  The  act  of  Cyrus,  according  to  the  descriptions  given  in  the  most  ancient 
accounts,  can  only  be  explained  by  the  religious  interest  which  he  took  in  the 
Jews. 

(4)  By  his  son  Pedaiah,  according  to  1  Chron.  iii.  19,  by  Shealtiel  according  to 
Ezra  iii.  2  [and  Hagg.  ii.  23],  Zerubbabel  being  esteemed  the  son  of  the  latter, 
either  by  reason  of  a  levirate  marriage,  or  because  he  had  been  adopted  by  him. 

(5)  He  is  also  called  Sheshbazzar,  a  Chaldee  name,  probably  bestowed  on  him 
as  a  similar  one  was  on  Daniel.  His  Hebrew  name  Zerubbabel  probably  =  i'^IJ 
7^33,  Babylone  genitus. 

(6)  This  circumstance  shows  how  greatly  during  the  captivity,  into  which  a 
portion  of  the  priesthood  had  been  carried  so  early  as  the  deportation  under  Je- 
hoiachin  (§  185  ;  Jer.  xxix.  1,  Ezek.  i.  3),  an  attachment  to  the  religion  of  their 
fathers  had  been  strengthened,  more  especially  among  the  priests. 

(7)  This  is  also  shown  by  the  offerings  of  those  who  came  up  with  Ezra  (Ezra 
viii.  35).  The  circumstance,  too,  that  twelve  heads  of  houses,  including  Zerub- 
babel and  Joshua,  presided  over  the  first  band  of  travellers,  might  be  explained 
on  this  ground.  (See  Neh.  vii.  7,  by  which  the  list  in  Ezra  ii.  2  must  be  com- 
pleted, and  the  apocryphal  1  Esdras,  v.  8.)  How  much  was  thought  in  the  newly 
assembled  community  of  being  able  to  show  a  pure  Israelitish  descent,  is  obvious 
from  Ezra  ii.  59  sqq.  The  want  of  genealogical  authentication  in  the  case  of 
priests,  however,  involved  only  a  suspension  of  priestly  privileges  ;  and  it  is  not 
said  that  "they  who  could  not  show  their  father's  house  and  their  seed  whether 
they  were  of  Israel,"  were  excluded  from  the  congregation.  The  colony  also  in- 
cluded, according  to  vi.  21,  Neh.  x.  29,  proselytes  "who  had  separated  them- 
selves from  the  filthiness  of  the  heathen  to  seek  the  Lord  God  of  Israel."  That 
care  was  continually  taken  to  keep  the  tribes  distinct,  is  shown  by  the  list  of  the 
people  in  Nehemiah's  days.  It  records,  however,  those  only  who  belonged  to  the 
tribes  of  Judah,  Benjamin,  and  Levi,  all  the  others  being  comprised  under  the 
indefinite  expression  /^"Jt^'  '^'^V-  The  genealogies  of  the  ten  tribes  may  for  the 
most  part  have  been  lost,  though  in  the  New  Testament,  Luke  ii.  36,  a  woman  of 
the  tribe  of  Asher  is  spoken  of. 

(8)  [Comp.  §  150,  and  more  particularly  the  art.  "Feste  der  spiiteren  Juden" 
in  Herzog's  Real-Encyldop.  2d  ed.,  and  Riehm's  art.  "Jahr"  in  his  Hand- 
icorte7'huch.] 

(9)  Ps.  cii.  is  usually  assigned  to  the  latter  times  of  the  captivity  :  to  me  it 
seems  more  probably  to  belong  to  the  day  of  small  things  after  the  return.  It  is 
said,  ver.  13  sq.  :  "  Thou  shalt  arise  and  have  mercy  on  Zion  ;  for  the  time  to 
favor  her,  yea,  the  set  time,  is  come.  For  Thy  servants  take  pleasure  in  her 
stones,"  etc.  The  Lord  liad  "  looked  down  from  the  heights  of  His  Sanctuary, 
...  to  hear  the  groaning  of  the  prisoner,  to  loose  those  appointed  unto  death  ;" 
therefore  the  people  might  now  also  expect  the  further  accomplishment  of  the 
prophetic  word,  the  appearing  of  the  glory  of  Zion,  and  the  association  of  all 
Hations  in  the  service  of  the  Lord  (comp.  vers.  20-23). 


§  190.]  THE    PERIOD    FROM    CYEUS   TO    DARIUS    IIYSTASPIS.  437 

§  190. 

The  Period  from  Cyrus  to  Darius  Hystaspis. 

Of  this  interval  we  have  no  account.  It  is  true  that,  according  to  the  theory 
formerly  prevailing,  and  still  advocated  by  Ewald,  Kohler,  and  others,  the 
section  Ezra  iv.  6-33  is  made  to  refer  to  this  period,  by  Ahashvcrosh  being  taken 
for  Cambyses,  and  Artahhshashta  for  the  Pseudo-Smerdis  (1).  But  it  is  only  by 
the  most  arbitrary  assumption  that  the  names  in  question  can  be  referred  to  other 
kings  than  those  who  bear  these  names  in  other  parts  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Hence  here,  as  elsewhere,  Ahashverosh  is  Xerxes,  and  Artahhshashta  Artaxerxes  ; 
and  this  section,  which  was  interpolated  at  the  editing  of  the  Hebrew  Ezra, 
treats  of  an  opposition  first  raised  against  the  building  of  the  city  of  Jerusalem 
and  its  walls  under  the  Persian  kings  there  named  (3).  In  the  whole  period  from 
Cyrus  to  Darius  Hystaspis,  hindrances  to  the  huildlng  of  the  temj^le  are  only  men- 
tioned, and  iv.  5  should  be  immediately  followed  by  ver.  34.  In  the  sixth  month 
of  the  second  year  of  Darius,  530  B.C.,  the  prophet  Haggai  was  raised  up  (3)  to 
encourage  the  viceroy  Zerubbabel  by  prophecy  ;  to  press  upon  the  people,  of 
whom  indolence  and  dejection  had  taken  possession,  the  resumption  of  the 
building  of  the  temple  ;  and  to  revive  their  hopes  of  the  promised  redemption 
(Hag.  i.)  (4).  When,  however,  the  meanness  of  the  building  (ii.  3,  comp.  with 
Zech.  iv.  10)  produced  fresh  despondency,  the  people  were  comforted  by  Haggai, 
and  also  by  Zechariah,  who  was  commissioned  two  months  after  him,  by  the  con- 
sideration that  the  day  of  small  things  must  not  be  despised,  because  success  came 
not  by  might  nor  by  power,  but  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  (Zech.  iv.  1-6,  comp.  Hag. 
ii.  5).  As,  in  spite  of  all  difficulties,  the  building  of  the  temple  would  now  be 
successfully  accomplished  (Zech.  iv.  7-9),  so  also  was  redemption  assured  to  them. 
As  yet,  indeed,  the  heathen  were  dwelling  in  proud  security,  and  Judah  was  in 
a  state  of  humiliation  (i.  8-13)  ;  but  soon  that  great  shaking  of  the  nations  would 
take  place,  in  which  the  heathen  powers  would  wear  each  other  out  (Hag.  ii. 
6,  31,  comp.  with  Zech.  ii.  1^).  Then  would  the  kingdom  of  God,  into  which 
the  Gentiles  should  be  incorporated,  and  to  which  they  should  dedicate  all  their 
treasures,  triumph  (Hag.  ii.  7  sq.,  Zech.  viii.  30-33).  For  the  covenant  people, 
however,  a  new  sifting  and  purification  was  ordained  (for  this  is  the  meaning  of 
the  vision  v.  1-11)  (5).  When  the  building  of  the  temple,  in  reliance  upon  Divine 
protection,  was  thus  resumed,  the  Persian  officials  on  this  side  the  Euphrates  at 
first  permitted  the  matter  to  be  proceeded  with,  until  the  royal  decision  should 
be  ascertained.  The  decree  of  Cyrus  being  found  among  the  archives  at  Ecbatana, 
the  decision  was  favorable  to  the  Jews.  Darius  commanded  not  only  that  the 
building  of  the  temple  should  not  be  hindered,  but  also  granted  state  assistance 
both  for  this  purpose  and  for  the  regular  maintenance  of  the  sacrifices.  The 
building  consequently  proceeded,  and  the  temple  was  finished  and  dedicated  in 
the  sixth  year  of  Darius,  516  B.C.  (Ezra  v.  sq.) 

(1)  See  Kohler,  die  Weissagungen  EaggaVs,  p.  17  sqq.  Kleinert,  Dorpater 
Beitrage  zu  den  theol.  Wissenschaften,  i.  p.  5  sqq.)  first  pointed  out  the  correct 
view,  and  F.  W.  Schultz  (in  his  article  "  Cyrus  der  Grosse,"  Stud,  mid  Kritih, 
1835,'  p.  685  sqq.)  and  Bertheau  {Exeget.  Eandbuch  zu  Esra,  Nehemia,  und  Esther,  p. 


428  THE   DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  THEOCEACT.  [§  191. 

69  sqq.)  have  more  particularly  discussed  the  matter.    Hengstenberg  and  Keil  are 
of  the  same  opinion. 

(2)  In  the  so-called  Third  Book  of  Ezra,  the  whole  section  stands  in  a  different 
place. 

(3)  The  part  taken  by  the  watchmen  of  Israel  (comp.  Isa.  Hi.  8,  etc.)  at  the  re- 
turn of  the  people  to  the  Holy  Land  is  not  known  to  us,  our  information  concern- 
ing the  ministrations  of  the  prophets  after  the  captivity  commencing  only  at  this 
epoch. 

(4)  "We  have  no  certain  information  concerning  the  personal  circumstances  of 
Haggai  fJn,  LXX  ' Ayyalog)  beyond  what  we  are  told  in  his  writings  and  in  Ezra 
V.  1,  vi.  14.  Perhaps  he  was  one  of  the  old  men  who  had  seen  the  former  temple 
in  its  glory  (Hag.  ii.  3). 

(5)  It  should  be  renierabered  that  these  predictions  were  uttered  not  long  before 
the  commencement  of  the  Persian  wars,  which  introduced  that  shaking  of  the  na- 
tions in  which  ancient  history  in  the  course  of  time  terminated.  The  authority 
at  this  time  exercised  by  the  iKophets  is  testified  not  only  by  the  resumption  of 
the  building  of  the  temple  at  their  word,  but  also  by  Zech.  vii.  3.  No  other 
prophets  are  mentioned  till  the  days  of  Nehemiah. 

§191. 
The  Jews  under  Xerxes.    Beginning  of  Ezra's  Administration. 

We  have  no  information  concerning  the  condition  of  the  people  in  Palestine 
during  the  next  fifty-eight  years,  except  the  short  paragraph  Ezra  iv.  6,  which,  as 
above  remarked,  refers  to  the  time  of  Xerxes  (1).  To  fill  up  the  gap  with  certain 
psalms,  as  Ewald  does,  who  transposes  Ps.  Ixxxix.,  xliv.,  Ixxiv.,  Ixxix.,  Ix.,  Ixxxv. 
to  this  period,  is  an  uncertain  hypothesis,  even  though  these  psalms  may  present, 
as  will  be  shown,  a  certain  adaptation  to  the  circumstances  of  the  times  (2).  Nor 
is  there  any  better  historical  authority  for  relegating,  with  certain  Fathers  of  the 
Church,  as  Theodoret  and  Theodore  of  Mojisuestia,  the  fulfilment  of  the  predic- 
tions concerning  Gog  and  Magog,  Ezek.  xxxviii.,  with  those  also  of  Joeliii.,  Mic. 
iv.  11,  to  the  times  of  Zerubbabel,  and  consequently  speaking  of  a  Scythian  inva- 
sion and  of  great  conflicts  between  the  Jews  and  the  surrounding  nations  as  then 
taking  place  (3).  On  the  other  hand  the  occurrence  in  Pe7'sia  to  which  the  Book 
of  Esther  refers,  does  belong  to  this  period,  viz.  to  the  reign  of  Xerxes.  That  an  his- 
torical germ  cannot  but  be  acknowledged  in  this  book,  is  testified  by  the  existence 
of  the  Feast  of  Purim  (4).  Its  historical  value,  however,  consists  rather  in  the 
contribution  it  affords  toward  our  knowledge  of  the  later  Judaism  ;  and  Bertheau 
justly  dwells  upon  the  contrast  presented  by  the  Israel  to  whom,  according  to  Isa. 
xl.  sqq.,  is  committed  the  mission  of  setting  up  the  kingdom  of  God  among  the 
Gentiles,  and  the  Jewish  people  as  here  depicted  (5). 

In  the  time  of  Artaxerxes  L&ngimanus,  the  thread  of  the  history  of  the  Jewish 
settlement  in  the  Holy  Land  is  again  taken  up,  viz.  first  by  the  Book  of  Ezra,  ch. 
vii.,  at  the  seventh  year  of  this  monarch  (458  B.C.).  We  find  the  colony  in  Pales- 
tine in  a  state  of  great  depression.  The  Jewish  territory  had,  it  is  true,  extended 
toward  the  south  (6);  but  the  condition  of  the  people  was  an  extremely  sad  one, 
by  reason  of  the  heavy  burdens  imposed  upon  them  under  the  arbitrary  sway  of 
the  Persian  governors,  Neh.  v.  15  (7).  Internal  disorders  also  prevailed  ;  the  or- 
dinances of  the  law,  which,  comparatively  speaking,  had  not  as  yet  been  revived, 
were  neglected  ;  and  the  lukewarmness  of  the  people  was  especially  shown  by  their 


§  191.]  THE   JEWS    UNDER   XERXES,  ETC.  429 

contracting  marriages  with  the  heathen  who  dwelt  in  their  neighborhood,  and 
also  in  some  instances  among  them.  The  utter  wretchedness  of  the  times  may  be 
perceived  from  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes,  which  was  probably  written  at  this  date 
(8).  Things  took  a  turn  for  the  better,  when,  in  the  seventh  year  of  Artaxerxes 
Longimanus  (not  of  Xerxes,  as  some,  who  follow  Josephus,  have  supposed), 
the  priest  and  scribe  Ezra  led  a  second  band  of  Israelites  into  Judea.  The 
number  of  those  who  then  returned  was  composed,  according  to  Ezra  viii.,  of 
1596  members  of  twelve  houses,  besides  (vii.  7)  priests  and  Levites  (of  the  three 
classes).  But  at  this  time  also,  as  appears  from  viii.  15,  there  was  but  little 
willingness  on  the  part  of  the  Levites  to  return.  This  strange  phenomenon  may 
be  explained  (see  Herzfeld,  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israels  von  der  Zerdorung  des  ersten 
Tempels,  p.  204)  by  supposing  either  that  the  Levites,  who,  as  we  learn  from  Ezek. 
xliv.  9  sqq.  and  xlviii.  11,  must  in  the  pre-Babylonian  period  have  been  even  more 
deeply  involved  in  idolatry  than  the  priests  (9),  united  themselves  during  the  cap- 
tivity with  the  heathenistic  party  among  the  people  ;  or  that  the  jealousy  enter- 
tained by  them  at  the  preference  of  the  Aaronic  race,  which,  according  to  the 
Pentateuch,  dated  from  the  earliest  times,  was  still  influencing  them.  The 
royal  authority  committed  to  Ezra  (vii.  11)  is  another  proof  that  the  interest  taken 
in  the  Jews  by  the  Persian  kings  was  a  religious  one.  To  provide  for  the  restora- 
tion of  the  legal  worship  w^as  the  first  object ;  and  all  the  expenses  needed  to 
secure  this  purpose  were,  so  far  as  they  were  not  covered  by  voluntary  contribu- 
tions, to  be  furnished  at  the  cost  of  the  state.  Ezra  was  strictly  to  enforce  the 
observance  of  the  Mosaic  law  as  well  as  of  the  commands  of  the  king  upon  all 
Israelites  dwelling  in  the  provinces  beyond  the  Euphrates.  Ezra  began  his  work 
of  reformation  by  the  dismissal  of  all  the  heathen  wives, — a  measure  which,  as 
may  be  seen  from  the  description  of  the  law,  §  103,  was  carried  out  to  an  extent 
considerably  surpassing  the  prohibitions  of  the  Mosaic  law  concerning  mixed  mar- 
riages. Of  Ezra's  subsequent  administration  during  the  next  twelve  years,  nothing 
is  narrated.  What  happened  during  this  period  may  be  inferred  from  the  record 
(Ezra  iv.  7-23),  which,  as  remarked  §  190,  is  of  this  date,  compared  with  Neh.  i. 
sq.  ;  for  Neh.  i.  3  cannot  but  produce  an  impression  that  occurrences  then  quite 
recent  are  there  spoken  of  (10).  Hence  a  new  and  heavy  trial  must  have  fallen 
upon  the  Jews,  who  during  this  time  must  have  attempted  to  fortify  Jerusalem, 
for  which  they  had  as  yet  no  permission  from  the  Persian  kings  (11).  The  mis- 
trust of  the  Persian  officials  being  excited  by  this  conduct,  they  induced  Artax- 
erxes to  prohibit  the  fortification  of  Jerusalem,  and,  with  the  assistance  of  the 
hostile  neighboring  states,  carried  his  decree  into  execution  by  destroying  such 
portions  as  were  already  built.  At  this  point  the  narrative  of  the  Book  of 
Nehemiah  commences. 

(1)  This  gap  in  the  history  does  not  occur  to  the  Rabbins,  who  have  never  been 
distinguished  for  chronological  accuracy,  and  -whoiondjide  jumble  together  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah  with  Zerubbabel  and  his  contemporaries. 

(2)  See  Ewald,  Hist,  of  the  People  of  Israel,  v.  p.  119  sqq.  According  to  this 
view,  Jerusalem  was  at  this  time  most  grievously  injured  and  despised  by  the 
neighboring  states,  the  temple  itself  damaged,  and  the  whole  country  devas- 
tated. J  n    ■  u 

(3)  When  Theodoret  makes  Zerubbabel  also  conquer  the  enemy  and  finish  the 


430  THE   DEVELOPMENT   OF   THE   THEOCRACY.  [§  191. 

temple  at  Jerusalem  with  the  spoil,  it  is  obvious  that  these  statements,  for  which 
he  appeals  to  ancient  authorities,  are  mainly  derived  from  these  very  prophetic 
passages.  No  certainty  can  in  any  way  be  obtained  but  by  recurring  to  the  Book 
of  Nehemiah,  of  which  hereafter. 

(4)  For,  as  Winer  {Bibl.  liealwurterhuch,  3d  ed.  p.  351)  remarks,  "It  is  not  so 
easy  to  introduce  festivals  among  whole  nations  as  it  is  for  a  student  sitting  in 
his  study,  with  the  modern  measuring  rule  in  his  hand,  to  raise  doubts  concern- 
ing the  records  of  antiquity."  On  the  meaning  of  the  name  D'TISH  "'P'',  see  Esth. 
ix.  24-26,  comp.  iii.  7.  For  further  particulars,  see  the  article  "  Feste  der 
spjiteren  Juden"  in  Herzog's  Iteal-EncyUop. 

(5)  See  Bertheau,  Exeget.  Ilandbuch  zn  den  B'uchern  Esra^  Nehemiah,  und  Esther, 
p.  287.  The  book  "  clearly  and  loudly  testifies  that  the  people  to  whom  the  con- 
quest of  the  world  was  promised  were  departing  further  and  further  from  com- 
munion with  the  living  God,  were  trusting  to  their  own  arm  and  to  earthly  power, 
and  consequently  must  succumb  in  the  conflict  with  the  powers  of  the  world." 
The  more  particular  features  of  the  book  are  discussed  in  the  introduction.  It  is 
remarkable  that  in  the  Hebrew  text  the  name  of  God  never  occurs  ;  in  the  LXX, 
on  the  contrary,  it  is  once  or  twice  met  with.  The  canonicity  of  this  book  was 
disputed  in  Christian  antiquity,  and  it  is  well  known  how  low  a  position  was 
assigned  to  it  by  Luther  {de  servo  arbitrio).  Compare  also  the  article  "Kanon  des 
A.  T."  in  Herzog,  vii.  pp.  251,  258. 

(6)  See  Neh.  xi.  25  sqq.  According  to  ver.  30  of  this  passage,  the  children  of 
Judah  dwelt  from  Beer-sheba  unto  the  valley  of  Ilinnom,  that  is,  from  the  south- 
ern boundary  of  the  former  Jewish  state  to  the  valley  of  Hinnom. 

(7)  Palestine  must  also  undoubtedly  have  borne  its  share  in  the  sacrifices  ex- 
acted for  the  contest  waged  by  the  Persian  monarchy  against  Greece  ;  and  the 
more  so,  since,  according  to  Herodotus,  vii.  89,  a  portion  of  the  fleet  of  Xerxes 
was  equipped  in  its  ports. 

(8)  See  Hengstenberg,  Der  Prediger  Salomo,  p.  12  sqq.,  and  Kleinert,  Der  Pred- 
iger  Salomo,  Programm  des  Friedr.-Wilh.-Oymn.  in  BerU7i,  1864,  in  which,  p.  25 
sqq.,  the  relations  of  this  age  are  excellently  discussed.  Hengstenberg  goes 
somewhat  too  far  in  the  manner  in  which  he  elucidates  the  book  from  Persian 
history  ;  still  he  has  contributed  much  apt  illustration.  The  canonicity  of  Eccle- 
siastes  was  a  matter  of  dispute  so  late  as  the  end  of  the  first  century  after  Christ, 
when  it  was  first  firmly  established  ;  comp.  the  article  Kanon  des  A.  T.  p.  251 
sq.  The  book  is  not  quoted  in  the  New  Testament.  [Bohl,  however,  holds, 
Die  A.  T.  Cltate  im  N.  T.,  1878,  p.  161,  that  in  Rom.  iii.  10  there  is  a  reference 
to  the  Septuagint  version  of  Ecclesiustes  vii.  20.] 

(9)  A  confusion  of  the  priestly  and  Levitical  offices  must  at  this  time  have  also 
taken  place  ;  at  least,  unless  this  is  assumed,  the  passages  Ezek.  xliv.  9  sqq.,  xlviii. 
11,  can  hardly  be  satisfactorily  explained.  For  after  Ezekiel  had  already,  xl.  46, 
xliii.  19,  explicitly  stated  thnt  among  the  Levites  only  the  descendants  of  Zadok 
might  approach  the  Lord  in  priestly  service,  the  passages  quoted  announce  to 
the  Levites,  as  a  punishment  for  their  apostasy  to  idolatry,  that  in  the  new  temple 
they  are  to  be  utterly  excluded  from  all  priestly  functions,  and  only  employed  in 
the  performance  of  humbler  offices.  [How  Wellhausen,  with  whom  Smend  in  his 
Commentar  zu  EzeJciel  agrees,  explains  these  passages,  see  §  93,  note  6.] 

(10)  See  the  discussion  of  this  matter  in  Bertheau,  id.  p.  130  sqq.  Keil  also 
regards  Neh.  i.  3  as  referring  to  the  Chaldee  destruction.  But  let  us  look  at  the 
case.  Jews  arrive  at  Susa  from  Jerusalem.  Nehemiah  inrjuires  how  things  are 
going  on  there,  and  they  begin  to  complain.  And  their  complaint  would  run 
somewhat  like  this:  The  walls  of  Jerusalem  (which  were  destroyed  140  years 
ago)  are  not  yet  rebuilt,  and  the  gates  still  lie  there  burned  up.  We  are  indebted 
to  Bertheau,  with  whom  I  entirely  agree,  id.,  for  having  first  jilaced  this  in  its  true 
light,  and  tlius  assigned  the  paragraph  Ezra  iv.  7  sqq.  to  its  right  place. 

(11)  An  attempt  which  is  easily  to  be  explained  by  the  efforts  excited  among 
the  people  by  Ezra  to  keep  up  a  strict  separation  between  themselves  and  their 
heathen  neighbors,  on  the  ground  of  the  Mosaic  institutions,  and  one,  moreover, 


192.]  EZRA    AND    NEHEMIAH — THE    CLOSE    OF    PROPHECY. 


431 


which,  considering  the  friendly  disposition,  shown  by  the  Persian  monarch  in  the 
mission  of  Ezra,  was  likely  to  be  attended  with  success. 

§193. 
Ezra  and  Nehemiali.      Tlie  Close  of  Prophecy. 

Nehemiah,  who  was  sent  to  Jerusalem  by  Artaxerxes  in  the  20th  year  of  that 
monarch's  reign  (b.o.  445),  with  the  authority  of  governor,  effected  the  restoration 
of  the  walls  and  gates  of  Jerusalem  (eh.  iii,  sq.),  notwithstanding  the  opposition  lie 
encountered  from  individuals  hostile  to  the  Jews  (Neh.  ii.  10,  19),  and  who,  as 
we  learn  from  vi.  17  sq.,  xiii.  4,  38,  had  adherents  even  among  the  chief  men  in 
the  city.  He  next  set  heartily  to  work  at  the  removal  of  internal  sores.  He  had 
to  deal  with  a  needy  proletariat,  which  had  suffered  much  ill-usage  at  the  hand 
of  wealthy  usurers,  and  was  much  exasperated  against  its  opulent  oppressors  (v.  3, 
5)  (1).  Nehemiah  put  a  stop  to  usury,  effected  a  restoration  of  mortgaged  estates 
(vers.  6-13),  and  took  vigorous  measures  for  the  maintenance  of  security  and 
order  (ch.  vii.).  Ezra  also  now  began  to  act  in  his  capacity  of  a  teaclier  of  the 
law  (ch.  viii.).  On  a  day  of  general  fasting,  the  people  were  bound  by  oath  to 
the  observance  of  the  law,  for  which  purpose  a  document  was  drawn  up  and 
signed  by  Nehemiah,  the  heads  of  the  jiriests,  the  Levites  (2),  and  tlie  rest  of  the 
people  (ch.  ix.  1)  (3).  Ezra,  as  being  the  imposer  of  the  obligation  upon  the 
people,  was  not  himself  among  those  who  signed.  He  occupied  a  i)osition  similar 
to  that  of  Moses  when  the  people  first  bound  themselves  to  the  covenant  (Ex. 
xxiv.) ;  and  yet  how  utterly  were  circumstances  now  changed  !  Tlien,  a  mediator  of  the 
covenant,  commissioned  immediately  by  Jehovah,  and  authenticated  as  such  by 
great  acts  of  Divine  revelation  ;  now,  a  man  who  had  received  his  authority  from 
a  heathen  king,  for  Ezra  does  not  claim  to  be  an  organ  of  revelation.  Then,  a 
people  redeemed  from  heathen  bondage,  and  assured  of  the  effectual  indwelling 
of  its  God  ;  now,  a  scanty  remnant,  obliged  to  confess,  Neh.  ix.  36  sq.,  "  Behold, 
we  are  servants  this  day  ;  and  the  land  that  Thou  gavest  our  fathers  to  eat  the 
fruit  thereof,  behold,  we  are  servants  in  it :  and  it  yielded  much  increase  to  the 
kings  whom  Thou  hast  set  over  us  because  of  our  sins."  The. written  law  had 
taken  the  place  of  the  sliekhina  of  the  God-King,  whose  pledges  (the  ark  and  the 
Urim  and  Thumrairn)  were  lacking  to  the  new  community,  and  the  people  now 
testify  their  reverence  for  the  roll  of  the  Law  (viii.  5).  To  Ezra  must  be  attrib- 
uted not  a  re-foundation  of  the  theocracy,  but  only  a  restoration  of  the  ordinances  of 
the  law,  which  was  now  fenced  about  by  further  restriftions — the  minn  J'D — to 
guard  against  the  infraction  of  the  commandments.  An  example  of  this  is  found 
in  the  injunction  beyond  the  limits  of  the  ^Mosaic  law,  on  the  part  of  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah,  with  regard  to  the  mixed  marriages, — a  measure  the  severity  of  whicli 
was  justified  by  a  reference  to  the  warning  derived  from  the  example  of  Solomon, 
xiii.  26  (4).  Ezra  was  iha  founder  of  Judaism  ]iroper ;  and  in  this  very  fact  lies 
his  great  importance  in  the  history  also  of  the  Tcingdom  of  God.  For,  the  restoration, 
through  his  instrumentality,  of  those  ordinances  which  formed  the  wall  of  par- 
tition that  separated  the  people  from  the  Gentiles,  was  the  means  of  preserving 
the  unity  of  the  nation,  to  which  not  only  the  preservation  of  the  loyia  tov  Qeov, 
Rom.  iii.  3,  was  committed  till  their  fulfilment,  but  from  which  also  was  to  arise 


432  THE    DEVELOPMENT   OF   THE   THEOCEACY.  [§  192. 

that  Itlfiixa  Kar'  EKloyr/v  xainroq,  xi.  5,  which  formed  the  stock  of  the  new  church 
of  the  redeemed  (5). 

After  a  twelve  years'  sojourn  in  Palestine  (433  B.C.),  Nehemiah  returned  to 
Persia.  But  new  abuses  sprang  up  during  his  absence,  and  he  returned  for  the 
second  time,— when,  cannot  be  certainly  determined  ;  but  as  ^^an  in  Neh.  xiii. 
6  most  naturally  refers  to  Artaxerxes,  it  was  probably  before  the  death  of  that 
monarch,  i.e.  before  424  B.C.,  though,  according  to  another  view,  not  till  the 
reign  of  Darius  Nothus.  Energetic  measures  were  then  taken  to  restore  order  ; 
and  Nehemiah  even  cast  out  the  grandson  of  Eliasbib  the  high  priest,  because  he 
had  married  a  daughter  of  Sanballat,  who  was  probably  a  Samaritan,  and,  accord- 
ing to  Josephus,  the  Persian  satrap  of  Samaria  (6).  This  expelled  priest  is  un- 
doubtedly the  same  individual  with  Manasseh,  of  whom  Josephus  speaks.  Ant. 
xi.  8,  as  the  founder  of  the  Samaritan  temple  upon  Mount  Gerizim,  though  he 
erroneously  refers  this  matter  to  the  times  of  Darius  Codomannus  (whom  he  con- 
founds with  Darius  Nothus)  and  Alexander  the  Great  (7).  The  Samaritans  were 
now  strengthened  by  the  accession  of  many  other  discontented  Jews  who  had 
contracted  mixed  marriages,  and  of  such  as  were,  according  to  Josephus,  accused 
of  a  breach  of  the  laws  concerning  food  and  the  keeping  of  the  Sabbath  ;  at  all 
events,  a  certain  intermingling  of  the  Jewish  and  Samaritan  races  took  place  at 
this  time.  The  Mosaic  law  was  now  adopted  by  the  Samaritans,  who  on  that 
very  account  became  all  the  more  the  rivals  of  the  Jews,  and  were  consequently  the 
more  detested  by  them  ;  comp.  e.g.  the  passage,  Wisd.  1.  25  sq.  (27  sq.)  (8). 
Prophecy  was  in  Nehemiah' s  days  in  a  state  of  deep  declension.  When  Nehemiah 
was  accused  by  Sanballat  of  having  appointed  prophets  to  proclaim  him  king, 
he  retorted  by  accusing  Sanballat  of  having  hired  the  prophet  Shemaiah  to  put 
him  in  fear,  on  which  occasion  other  prophets  and  a  prophetess  Noadiah  are  also 
mentioned  (Neh.  vi.  6-14).  In  his  days,  however,  that  is,  in  the  time  of  his 
second  governorship,  the  last  of  the  canonical  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament  ex- 
ercised his  ministry.  His  book,  the  last  of  the  minor  jorophets,  is  known  as  that 
of  'P*'/'?)  ^  name  which  should  perhaps  be  understood  appellatively.  [Although 
more  probably  it  is  the  name  of  the  prophet  Malaohi. — D.]  From  the  Book  of 
Malachi  we  learn  that  an  external  legalism,  which  fubsequently  developed  into 
Pharisaism,  had  now  taken  possession  of  the  masses.  Malachi  contends  against  a 
dead  self-righteousness,  which  was  contented  with  the  most  superficial  fulfilment 
of  the  law  (Mai.  i.  G  sqq.,  iii.  7  sqq.),  and  announces  to  the  people  who,  discon- 
tented witli  the  uneventful  course  of  the  day  of  small  things,  were  desiring  the 
judgments  of  God  upon  the  heathen  world  and  the  appearance  of  the  times  of 
deliverance  (ii.  17,  iii.  13  sqq.),  that  the  days  of  Messianic  redemption  would  cer- 
tainly appear,  but  would  be  preceded  by  a  lieavy  and  sifting  judgment  of  the 
covenant  people  themselves  (iii.  1  sqq.,  19,  23  sq.,  iv.  1,  5  sq.)  (9).  With  the 
promise  of  the  Divine  messenger,  who  was,  in  the  power  of  Elijah,  to  prepare  the 
way  for  the  Lord  who  was  coming  to  His  temple  (iii.  1,  23),  the  prophecies  of  the 
Old  Testament  conclude  (10).  For  even  the  times  of  the  Maccabees,  when  a  proph- 
et was  expected,  were  unable,  in  spite  of  the  heroic  enthusiasm  then  displayed, 
to  produce  one  (comp.  such  passages  as  1  Mace.  iv.  46,  ix.  27,  xiv.  41),  If  in 
later  days  the  gift  of  prophecy  was  claimed,  as  Josephus  tells  us,  for  individuals, 
yiz.  for  Hyrcanus,  Ant,  xiii.  10,  7,  for  seers  among  the  Essenes,  xiii,  11.  2,  and 


§  192.]         EZRA   AND   NEHEMIAH — THE   CLOSE   OF  PliOPHECY.  433 

XV.  10.  5,  uiiy,  for  liimself,  Bell.  Jud.  iii.  8.  9,  this  is  of  no  importance  so  far  as 
the  history  of  Prophetisni  is  concerned.  On  the  other  hand,  prophecy  shone  forth 
once  more  in  tiic  ajopearauce  of  that  messenger  announced  by  Malachi,  whom 
Christ  dechired,  Matt.  xi.  11,  the  greatest  yet  born  of  woman,  and  who  closed 
the  times  of  tlie  old  covenant  by  pointing  to  the  already  risen  sun  of  righteous- 
ness in  the  words,  John  iii.  30,  "  He  must  increase,  but  I  must  decrease"  (11). 

(1)  Neh.  V.  2  :  "We,  our  sons,  and  our  daughters,  are  many  :  therefore  we 
take  up  corn  for  them,  that  we  may  eat  and  live."  Ver.  5  :  "  Our  flesh  is  as  the 
flesh  of  our  brethren,  ourcliildren  as  their  children  ;  and,  lo,  we  bring  into  bond- 
age our  sons  and  our  daughters  to  be  servants,  .  .  .  :  neither  is  it  in  our  power 
to  redeem  them,  for  other  men  have  our  lands  and  vineyards." 

(2)  The  post-Babylonian  priests  dwelt  for  tlie  most  part  at  Jerusalem.  It  seems, 
from  Ezra  ii.  70  and  Neh.  vii.  78,  xi.  3,  that  the  old  cities  of  the  priests  were  also 
sought  out.  The  old  cities  of  the  Levites  are  not  mentioned.  Neh.  x.  35  sqq. 
shows  that  the  revenues  of  the  priests  were  under  Nehemiah  established  accord- 
ing to  the  law,  and  xii.  44  that  the  offices  required  for  their  administration  were 
also  appointed. 

(3)  The  repeated  formal  engagements  undertaken  upon  oath  by  the  people  in 
honor  of  Jehovah,  are  among  the  peculiarities  of  Israelitish  history.  The  first 
transaction  of  the  kind  took  place  under  Moses,  another  after  the  overthrow  of 
Athaliah,  another  under  Josiah,  and  one  such  is  here  related. 

(4)  [The  critics  of  the  Reuss  and  Graf  school  hold  a  different  view.  According 
to  them,  the  most  important  ordinances  are  of  post-exilic  origin,  and  especially 
the  priests'  codex  is  a  work  of  Ezra,  but  in  the  sense  that  it  is  a  collection  made 
by  him,  of  existing  legal  enactments.  Comp.  Wellhausen,  i.  420  sqq.,  Reuss, 
§  378  sqq.  But  while  according  to  the  former  of  these  writers  Ezra  brought  the  law 
from  Babj'lon,  and  then  waited  fourteen  years  "  until  he  finally  (in  the  year  444) 
came  out  with  the  law  which  he  had  brought  with  him,"  the  latter  assures  us 
that  this  was  not  possible  :  "  If  .  .  .  the  law  was  read  for  the  first  time  in  the 
presence  of  Nehemiah,  this  did  not  occur  till  fourteen  years  after  the  arrival  of 
Ezra,  and  consequently  it  is  proved  that  it  was  not  previously  kno^V^n  in  Jerusalem, 
and  therefore  that  Ezra  had  not  brought  it  all  ready  from  Babylon,  and  that  he 
took  many  years  to  bring  it  into  the  form  which  he  may  have  given  it"  (§  377). 
Because  Reuss  is  not  acquainted  with  the  reasons  which  led  Ezra  not  to  read  the 
law  till  the  fourteenth  year,  or  perhaps  because  it  did  not  occur  to  Ezra  to  do  it 
till  that  time,  it  is  "  proved"  that  the  law  was  not  previously  in  existence  !  The 
conclusion  of  Wellhausen  that  Ezra  was  the  author  of  the  law  is  no  better  :  "Most 
important  is  the  declaration  (Ezra  vii.  14,  comp.  25)  that  the  law  of  his  God  was  in 
his  hand :  it  was  therefore  his  private  property,  although  it  claims  to  concern  all 
Israel  (i.  p.  422).  Comp.  also  Strack,  art.  "  Kanon  der  A.T."  in  Herzog.  The 
assertion  made  with  great  confidence  that  the  priests'  codex  was  Ezra's  private 
property,  and  that  in  Nehemiah,  chap,  viii-x.  "the  introduction  of  the  Pentateuch" 
is  related,  stands  in  irreconcilable  opposition  to  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  very 
portion  of  the  book  appealed  to  as  evidence.  It  deserves  to  be  mentioned  also 
that  although  Wellhausen  declares  :  "  That  the  law  of  Ezra  was  the  entire  Penta- 
teuch (-/rZwn'^is  ^>/' r^o  f/ow^  "  Reuss  holds  that  Ezra  at  that  time  only  bound  the 
people  to  observe  the  priests'  codex,  which  was  not  yetimited  with  the  Jchovistic- 
Deuteronomic  portions  ;  that  the  formation  of  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  was 
continued  beyond  the  time  of  Ezra  ;  and  that  accordingly  the  Pentateuch  was  not 
completed  till  the  generations  afterward.  iSee  on  the  question,  Strack  in  Zockler, 
i.  p.  138  sq.] 

(5)  In  fact  matters  had  gone  so  far,  that  the  continuance  of  an  Israelitish  nation- 
ality, maintaining  its  contrast  to  heathenism,  was  seriously  imperilled,  the  strong 
party  among  the  Jews  which  was  hostile  to  Nehemiah  being  apparently  determin- 
ed to  obliterate  this  contrast. 


434  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  THEOCRACY.         [§  193. 

(6)  Hence  (see  Neh.  xiii.  28  sq.),  and  from  Ezra  x.  18-22,  it  is  evident  that  the 
priests  especially  were  subjected  to  the  severe  discipline  exercised  by  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah  with  respect  to  mixed  marriages.  Such  discipline  was  the  more  need- 
ful in  proportion  as  the  needy  condition  of  the  colony  affected  the  state  of  public 
worship,  and  begot  indifference  and  discouragement  among  the  priesthood  ;  see 
Mai.  i.  6,  ii.  9. 

(7)  That  is  certainly  the  most  improbable  view  which  makes  the  same  thmg  take 
place  twice,  as  is  done  by  Petermann  (article  "Samaria"  in  Herzog's  Real-Ency- 
Mop.  xiii.  p.  367),  who,  regarding  the  accounts  of  Nehemiah  and  Josephus  as  re- 
lating to  different  persons,  accepts  two  Sanballats  and  two  sons-in-law  to  Jewish 
high  priests. 

(8)  Ecclesiasticus,  1.  25  sq.  :  "There  be  two  manner  of  nations  which  my  soul 
abhorreth,  and  the  third  is  no  nation  ;  they  that  sit  upon  the  mountain  of  Seir  [the 
Edomites],  and  that  dwell  among  the  Philistines,  and  that  foolish  people  that 
dwell  at  Sichem."  The  third  is  the  people  dwelling  at  Sichem,  i.e.  the  Samari- 
tans. 

(9)  The  lecture-like  form  of  Malachi  reminds  us,  in  the  manner  and  way  in 
which  it  lays  down  propositions,  raises  questions  in  opposition,  and  then  fully 
answers  them,  of  the  dialogistic  method  of  the  schools,  as  Ewald  has  aptly  re- 
marked. 

(10)  Jewish  apocalyj)tic  literature  is  an  after-growth  of  prophecy.  It  bears  the 
character  of  a  secret  literature,  and  undoubtedly  originated  in  those  narrower 
circles  (probably  among  the  Essenes,  Joseph.  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  8.  12)  in  which  the 
hopes  of  Israel  were  kept  alive  during  the  times  in  which  there  were  no  prophets, 
by  the  study  of  the  prophetic  word.  In  such  circles  the  predictions  of  Daniel, 
which,  Dan.viii.  26,  xii.  4,  decidedly  refer  to  secret  tradition,  would  also  be 
disseminated,  while  this  book,  on  the  other  hand,  seems  not  to  have  been  made 
public  till  the  times  of  the  Maccabees,  and  then  to  have  received  its  final  form. 
(The  origin  of  these  predictions  in  general  cannot,  however,  be  comprehended  by 
referring  them  to  the  time  of  the  Maccabees;  comp.  the  article  "  Kanon"  in 
Herzog's  JReal-EnryMop.  vii.  p.  420.)  This  apocalyptic  literature,  whose  monu- 
ments are  the  Book  of  Enoch,  the  Jewish  Sibyllines,  the  Fourth  Book  of  Ezra,  the 
Psalter  of  Solomon,  aims  at  constructing  a  course  of  history  in  the  light  of  the 
prophetic  word,  in  which  attempt  it  fastens  especially  on  symbolic  numbers.  Such 
apocalyptic  literature  is,  however,  the  product  of  reflection  ;  and  no  prophet, 
properly  so  called,  is  known  by  Judaism  after  Malachi ;  comp.  on  this  subject 
the  article  "Messias  "  in  Herzog,  ix,  p.  426  sqq.  [also  Schilrer,  JV".  T.  Zeitgeschichte, 
p.  511  sqq.] 

(11)  It  is  a  remarkable  phenomenon,  that  as,  before  the  Chaldean  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  false  jorophecy  was  at  its  height,  and  bore  a  great  share  of  the 
guilt  of  that  terrible  catastrophe,  so,  also,  in  the  dreadful  days  preceding  the 
Roman  conquest  of  Jerusalem,  a  number  of  false  prophets  again  appeared,  by 
whose  worthless  predictions  the  people  were  involved  in  ruin  (Josephus,  Bell. 
Jud.  vi.  5.  3  sq.),  while  the  genuine  word  of  prophecy  was  despised. 

§  193. 
The  Beginning  of  Sopherism.     Public  Worship  at  the  Close  of  this  Period. 

Since,  in  a  time  in  which  no  revelation  from  on  high  is  received,  men 
are  referred  to  the  written  revelation,  and  above  all  to  the  written  law,  the 
scrihes  or  Sophe7'im,  who  diligently  applied  themselves  to  the  records  of  revela- 
tion, and  especially  to  the  exposition,  completion,  and  fencing  of  the  law,  now 
appear  in  the  place  of  the  prophets.  Their  prototype  and  representative  is  Ezra 
(comp.  Ezra  vii.  6,  10),  for  which  reason  subsequent  tradition  refers  to  him  what- 
ever the  united  agency  of  the   scribes   effected  (1).     The    Sopherim  originally 


§  193.]  THE   BEGIKNING   OF   SOPHERISM,   ETC.  435 

sprang  from  the  priesthood,  the  scribe  Ezra  being  also  a  priest.  The  exposition 
of  the  law  was  indeed  a  part  of  the  priestly  office  (see  Mai.  ii.  7,  comp.  §  95),  and 
in  Hag.  ii.  11  sqq.  it  is  the  priests  who  are  referred  to  for  a  decision  in  questions 
concerning  the  law.  It  is  possible  that  in  pre-Babylonian  times  individual 
priests,  specially  skilled  in  the  law,  exercised  this  branch  of  their  calling,  and 
were  styled  the  TTJinn  'bph,  Jer.  ii.  8,  and  also  Cl^b,  viii.  8.  But  it  was  not  till 
after  the  time  of  Ezra  that  the  scribes  (the  ypa/ifiarels  of  the  New  Testament)  formed 
a  separate  class,  which,  though  both  priests  and  Levites  belonged  to  it,  was  by  no 
means  restricted  to  men  of  Levitical  descent  (3).  Thus  an  essential  portion  of  the 
priestly  office  was  lost,  and  indeed  that  portion  in  which  was  henceforth  concen- 
trated the  spiritual  agency  and  religious  interest  of  Judaism.  The  priests,  as 
such,  were  now  restricted  to  the  performance  of  religious  rites  and  the  transac- 
tions therewith  connected.  Now,  however,  the  worship  upon  Mount  Zion,  of 
which  the  son  of  Sirach  speaks  so  enthusiastically,  1.  5-33,  was  without  its  former 
pledges  of  God's  abiding  presence  in  the  midst  of  His  people,  and  the  temple 
had  but  an  empty  Holy  of  Holies.  The  prediction  Jer.  iii.  16  sq.  was  fulfilled  as 
to  its  negative  side,  "  They  shall  no  more  make  the  ark  of  the  covenant,"  though 
not  as  to  its  positive  side,  "  They  shall  call  Jerusalem  the  throne  of  the  Lord,  and 
all  nations  shall  be  gathered  unto  it,"  etc.  The  breastplate  also  of  the  high 
priest  was  without  the  Urim  and  Thummim,  whose  restoration  was  waited  for,  Ezra 
ii.  63,  §  97,  but  in  vain.  Thus,  the  ancient  insignia  with  which  the  priesthood 
had  been  divinely  furnished  for  its  office  having  disapjjeared,  the  j^riests  lost  their 
consciousness  of  their  mediatorial  position  between  God  and  the  peojDle.  They 
formed  only  a  hierarchical  class,  which,  being  no  longer  restrained  by  the  presence 
of  the  two  other  theocratic  offices,  was  so  much  the  more  inclined  to  traffic  with 
its  prerogatives  in  the  furtherance  of  secular  and  political  aims  (3).  By  the  side  of 
those  services  of  the  temple  which  were  connected  with  the  priesthood,  was  more 
and  more  developed  the  service  of  the  synagogue^  with  the  reading  and  exposition 
of  the  law, — a  service  whose  administration  devolved  upon  the  scribes.  This  now 
formed  the  actual  centre  of  the  religious  life  of  Judaism.  By  means  of  the  syna- 
gogues, a  different  view  of  religious  worship  in  general  was  formed,  animal  sacri- 
fices declined,  and  their  place  was  occupied  by  the  sacrifice  of  prayer,  the  con- 
templation of  the  Divine  word  forming  the  central  point  of  the  service.  It  was 
chiefly  with  the  synagogue  and  not  with  the  temple,  that  Christian  worship  was 
connected  (4). 

(1)  Further  particulars,  especially  concerning  the  Great  Synagogue,  belong  to 
the  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament.  We  can  here  give  only  the  following  :  — 
Ezra  must  have  taken  the  precaution  of  instructing  for  his  purposes  a  number  of 
individuals  learned  in  the  law  (comp.  Ezravii.  35,  Neh.  viii.  7  sq.,  13).  Tradi- 
tion assigns  to  him  a  college  of  scribes,  under  the  name  of  the  Great  Synagogue, 
as  sharers  in  his  work  of  organization.  The  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
know  nothing  of  such  an  authority,  for  it  can  be  found  neither  in  the  committee 
of  elders  appointed,  according  to  Ezra  x.  16,  for  the- putting  away  of  the  foreign 
wives,  nor  in  that  appointed,  Neh.  x.  1  sqq.,  to  seal  the  covenant  of  the  people  to 
keep  the  law.  The  historical  germ  of  this  tradition  probably  amounts  to  no  more 
than  this,  that  in  it  is  embodied  the  remembrance  of  the  succession  and  co-operation 
of  the  scribes,  from  the  times  of  Ezra  to  those  of  Simon  the  Just  (about  300  B.C.). 
[For  the  latter  was,  according  to  Pirke  Aboth  i.  2,  one  of  the  last  members.] 


436  THE   DEVELOPMENT  OP  THE  THEOCRACY.  [§  193. 

Whether  these  scribes,  however,  exercised  their  functions  as  an  ortranized  court, 
or  only  as  a  voluntary  association,  and  in  virtue  of  their  personal  authority,  can- 
not be  determined.  Comp.  the  article  "Kanon''  in'H.erzog's.  Real-EncyUop.  vii. 
p.  245  sqq. 

(2)  It  is  disputed  whether  any  scribe  of  the  date  of  Ezra  is  known  to  us  even 
by  name  besides  himself.  This  depends  upon  how  we  understand  Neh.  xiii.  13. 
Zadok  the  scribe,  who  may,  however,  be  also  regarded  (so  Bertheau)  as  merely  a 
writer  who  had  to  make  the  catalogue  for  the  store-chambers  of  the  temple,  is 
there  distinguished  from  both  priests  and  Levites  ;  if,  however,  he  was  the  indi- 
vidual mentioned  iii.  29,  he  must  have  been  a  priest. 

(3)  Comp.  on  this  subject  Jost,  Geschichte  des  Judenthums,  i.  p.  148.  For 
further  particulars  on  the  high-priesthood,  priesthood,  and  Levites,  see  the  arti- 
cles on  these  subjects  in  Herzog's  Real-Encylclop. 

(4)  On  the  further  history  of  Judaism,  see  the  articles  "Volk  Gottes"  and 
"Israel"  in  Herzog. 


§  195.]  THE  LORD  OF  HOSTS.  43'J' 


SECOND  SECTION. 

THE  THEOLOGY  OF  PROPHETISM. 

§194. 

S^immary. 

The  theology  of  Mosaism  is  further  developed  by  prophecy,  especially  in  the 
following  respects  : — 

1.  With  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  God  and  of  his  relation  to  the  world,  the  idea  of 
Jehovah  develops  into  the  Divine  name  of  The  LORD  of  Hdsts  {Jehovah  Sabaoth), 
with  which  is  connected  a  further  expansion  of  angelology. 

2.  In  its  conflict  both  with  the  legal  externalism  and  the  apostasy  of  the  people, 
the  intrinsically  moral  nature  of  the  Law  is  further  developed  by  Prophecy,  and 
greater  depth  thus  given  to  that  view  of  man''s  religious  and  moral  relation  to  God 
which  Mosaism  involves  ;  in  other  words,  the  doctrine  of  siiijind  ofj'ighteousness  is 
further  unfolded. 

3.  The  communion  of  man  icith  Ood  culminates  in  Prophecy.  The  nature  of 
prophetic  revelation  and  of  projjheaj  will  be  here  represented  as  the  continuation 
of  what  Mosaism  teaches  concerning  ihe  forms  of  Divine  revelation. 

4.  The  progress  of  the  hingdom  of  God  forms  the  essential  matter  of  prophecy. 


FIRST   DIVISION. 
THE  DOCTRIKE  OF  THE  LORD  OF  HOSTS  (1)  AND  OF  ANGELS. 

§195. 
Form  and  Occurrence  of  the  Name  of  God.     Partial   Views  concerning  its  Original 


Jehovah  Sabaoth  [Heb.  Tsebhaoth].— The  full  expression  of  this  name  of 
God  is  r\iX3V  'n"7«  njn;  (or  nixaxn  'ribx  nin;)  ;  it  is,  however,  mostly  found  in 
its  abbreviated  form,  nixny  ^F^]  (ooce,  Amos  ix.  5,  niK3:tfn  njn;).  In  the  latter 
mode  of  expression,  r\y\]  is  not  in  the  status  constructus  (2),  against  which  is  the 
form  r\iX3V  D'^i'7^|l  occurring  in  certain  passages  in  the  Psalms  (3)  ;  but  the 
abbreviated  form  must  be  explained  by  an  ellipsis,  the  more  general  notion  being 
taken  from  the  nomen  proprium,  as  in  Cn'^Sa  nJ  and  similar  combinations  (4). 
r\i«3V  never  appears  alone  as  a  name  of  God  in  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Old 
Testament.     The  LXX  are  the  first  to  treat  the  word  occasionally  ^sb.  proper 


438  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    PROtHETISM.  [|  195. 

name,  viz.  by  generally  rendering  it  in  the  First  Book  of  Samuel  and  in  Isaiah  by 
aaj3aojO  (5)  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  they  render  it  in  the  Second  Book  of  Samuel, 
frequently  in  Jeremiah  and  throughout  the  Minor  Prophets,  with  the  exception  of 
Zech.  xJii.  2,  by  iravTOKparup,  and  in  the  Psalms,  occasionally  in  Jeremiali,  and  in 
some  passages  in  other  books,  by  Kvptog  or  debg  tuv  dwdfieuv  (G).  Jehovah  Sabaoth 
does  not  occur  as  the  Divine  name  in  the  Pentateuch,  Joshua,  or  Judges.  It  is 
first  mentioned  in  the  narrative  of  the  times  of  Eli.  Sacrifices  are  offered  in  Shiloh 
to  Jehovah  Sabaoth  (1  Sam.  i.  3,  comp.  with  iv.  4)  ;  and  it  is  by  this  name  that 
Hannah  invokes  God  (i.  11).  The  name  seems  to  have  been  especially  in  use 
in  the  days  of  Samuel  and  David  (comp.  1  Sam.  xv.  2,  xvii.  45  ;  2  Sam.  vii.  8,  26 
sq.  ;  Ps.  xxiv.  10).  In  the  Books  of  the  Kings  it  seldom  occurs,  and  only  in  the 
mouths  of  the  prophets  Elijah  and  Elisha.  In  the  prophetical  books  it  is  most 
frequently  found  in  Amos,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Haggai,  Zechariah,  and  Malachi  (7;. 
This  name,  according  to  its  original  meaning,  is  said  by  many  (8)  to  designate 
Jehovah  as  the  Ood  of  battles  qf^Bis  people,  who  are  called,  Ex.  vii.  4  and  xii.  41, 
the  "armies"  or  "hosts"  of  the  Lord.  The  expression  "God  of  armies,  or 
hosts"  would  thus  be  equivalent  to  the  appellation  in  1  Sam.  xvii.  45  (Keri) 
SnTlT;^  rii^li^l^  ''d'^??  (God  of  the  armies  of  Israel).  Ps.  xxiv.  is  also  referred  to, 
where  ri'lNJ^  T\]T\]  in  ver.  10  is  said  to  be  equivalent  to  HonSo  II^J  n'lrT;  in  ver.  8. 
But  though  it  is  true,  as  will  be  shortly  seen,  that  there  is  in  this  name  a  reference 
to  the  fact  that  God  manifests  Himself  in  irresistible  jiower  against  the  enemies  of 
His  people,  yet  if  this  were  its  original  meaning,  it  is  strange  that  the  name  did 
not  make  its  appearance  in  those  ancient  times  which  were  expressly  the  times  of  the 
great  theocratic  conflicts  ("the  wars  of  Jehovah,"  Num.  xxi.  14)  ;  and  again,  that 
it  did  not  originate,  but  was  already  in  use,  in  the  warlike  age  of  David.  The 
combination  in  1  Sam,  xvii.  45^  of  "the  Lord  of  Hosts"  and  "the  God  of  the 
armies  of  Israel,"  testifies  that  the  two  names  do  not  signify  the  same  thing.  A 
higher  notion  must  be  involved  in  the  former,  namely  this,  that  the  fact  that  the 
God  of  the  armies  of  Israel  is  also  the  Lord  of  Hosts  makes  Him  so  terrible  a  God.  A 
similar  relation  exists  in  Ps.  xxiv.  between  vers.  8  and  10.  From  the  Lord  "mighty 
in  battle,"  the  psalm  rises  to  the  God  of  Hosts  ;  the  thought  in  the  tenth  verse 
corresponding  with  that  in  the  first  :  so  that  the  ode,  in  its  opening  and  conclu- 
sion, celebrates  the  God  of  Israel  as  God  of  tfie  world. — This  more  general  meaning 
of  the  name  has  given  currency  to  a  second  vieio,  which,  appealing  to  Gen.  ii.  1, 
understands  the  expression  n'lXJy  as  applying  to ^^3^creaturesJ,n  general^  who  to- 
gether compose  the  great  army  of  the  Lord.  (So  that  it  is  the  majesty  of  God  in 
general,  as  displayed  in  his  dominion  over  the-v\'hoIe  creation,  which  this  name 
expresses)  (9).  Hutthe  expressiorT'^iost"  is  only  flguratitdy  applied  to  the 
creatures  in  general  ;  the  mention  of  the  heavens  being,  in  the  passage  appealed 
to,  the  immediate  occasion  of  tlie  introduction  of  CX31^,  which  is  applied  to  the 
creatures  of  the  earth  only  in  virtue  of  a  zeugma,  as  the  more  exact  expression 
Neh.  ix.  G  shows  (10).  Tlxe.true  crplanaMon  of  the  name  must.be  derived  from 
the  phrase  host  of  heaven  (D;DK?n  i^^Y). 

(1)  Compare  my  article  "  Zebaoth"  in  Herzog's  Real-EncyU.  xviii.  p.  400  sqq. 
[and  Baudissen,  i.  p.  118  sqq.,  on  this  and  the  following  sections]. 

(2)  So  Ewald,  Ausf.  Lehrh.  der  heir.  Sprache,  §  268  c;  Gesenius,  Thesaurus,  iii. 


§  196.]  THE   HOST   OF    HEAVEN  :    THE    HEAVENLY    BODIES.  439 

p.  1146.     [In  his  LeTire  von  Gott,  ii.  p.  340,  Ewald  explains  the  phrase  as  an  abbre- 
viation of  "  Jehovah,  the  God  of  the  armies  of  heaven."] 

(3)  See  Ps.  lix.  5,  Ixxx.  4,  7,  14,  19,  Ixxxiv,  8.  The  Masorites,  too,  in  the  pas- 
sages where  'J^i<  precedes  nin\  have  never  placed  under  the  latter  word  the  points 
of  ^ri^N,  but  always  those  of  D'ri^X  (comp.  also  Isa.  x.  IG,  nixav  'p^). 

(4)  See  Hengstenberg,  Chrktology  of  the  Old  Test.  i.  p.  375  sq. 

(5)  Also  Jas.  V.  4,  "the  Lord  of  Hosts."  The  expression  aajiaud  is,  however, 
never  found  alone  in  the  LXX  ;  it  first  stands  thus  in  the  SibylUnes,  i.  804,  and 
elsewhere.  Lydus,  de  mensilnis,  %  38,  98,  regards  the  name  as  a  Phoenician  one, 
and  derives  from  it  the  number  seven  :  6  h-kp  -ovg  £wra  nolovg,  tovt'  egtiv  6  (hjfuovp- 
yoQ. 

(6)  The  other  Greek  versions  have  the  more  exact  expression  Kvpiog  crpaTiuv. 

(7)  It  is  found  in  other  prophets  also,  at  least  in  single  passages,  but  never  in 
either  Ezekiel  or  Daniel.  It  is  also  wanting  in  the  books  of  the  Hhokhma  ; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  it  sometimes  appears  in  the  Psalms,  but  only  in  the 
first  three  books,  and  consequently  seems  to  have  been  out  of  use  in  the  later 
psalmody.  Among  the  post-Babylonian  historical  books,  it  is  found  only  in 
Chronicles,  and  there  only  in  the  history  of  David  (1  Chron.  xi.  9,  xvii.  7,  24). 

(8)  So  Herder,  Spirit  of  Hebrew  Poetry ;  v.  Colin,  Theol.  des  A.  T.  p.  104. 
("This  combination  of  the  name  of  God  is  first  found  in  the  Books  of  Samuel, 
where  it  is  pretty  frequently  used,  but  always  with  reference  to  war,  battles,  and 
victories  ;  so  that  the  word  liosts  must  be  taken  as  the  hosts  of  the  Israelites,  and 
this  name  of  God  be  understood  to  designate  Him  as  the  God  of  warlike  hosts, 
the  God  who  presides  over  the  hosts  of  Israel  and  leads  them  to  victory. ' ')  [So  also 
Schultz,  p.  492  sq.,  who  argues  with  Schrader  that  the  plural  niX^V  is  used  only  of 
earthly  warriors.  But  this  plural  seldom  occurs  except  in  connection  with  nin", 
and  the  plural  D'J^Ti  is  used  of  the  host  of  angels  in  Ps.  ciii.  21.] 

(9)  So  Havernick,  Theol.  des  A.  T.  p.  48.  This  view  is  undoubtedly  correct,  in 
recognizing  the  fact  that  the  almighty  power  of  God  over  the  universe  is  implied 
in  the  name,  but  this  is  not  the  idea  which  originally  gave  rise  to  it.  Joh.  Bux- 
torf  (the  son),  also,  in  his  treatise  "  de  nominibus  Dei  hebraicis"  {Dissertat.  j^hilol. 
theol.  p.  280),  understands  by  the  hosts  of  God  varios  exercitus,  qui  ipsi  j>a?-ent, 
ministrant  et  militant^  the  celestial  hosts,  viz.  the  angels  and  stars  ;  the  terrestrial, 
the  powers  of  nature,  sword,  famine,  pestilence,  etc.  ;  and  lastly,  the  hosts  of 
Israel. 

(10)  Neh.  ix.  6  :  "Thou  hast  made  heaven,  the  heaven  of  heavens,  with  all 
their  host,  the  earth,  and  all  things  that  are  therein,  the  seas,  and  all  that  is  there- 
in, and  Thou  preservest  them  all ;  and  the  host  of  heaven  worshippeth  Thee." 

§196. 
The  Host  of  Heaven  :  1.  The  Heavenly  Bodies. 

The  host  of  heaven  in  the  Old  Testament  includes,  as  the  above-cited  passage  of 
Nehemiah  shows,  the  heavenly  bodies  and  the  celestial  syirits. 

In  the  view  of  the  nations  bordering  upon  Israel,  the  heavenly  bodies  were 
either  Divine  powers,  genii  pursuing  their  paths  clothed  in  ethereal  bodies,  or  at 
least  forms  of  manifestation  of  Divine  beings.  In  opposition  to  such  notions,  which 
essentially  unite  if  they  do  not  identify  the  heavenly  bodies  and  heavenly  spirits,  the 
Old  Testament  distinctly  maintains  not  only  the  creaturehood  of  the  heavenly  host 
(Ps.  xxxiii.  6),  but  also  the  distinction  of  the  two  above-named  classes.  It  is  only 
by  a  poetiail  personification  that  the  stars  are  spoken  of  in  the  song  of  Deborah, 
Judg.  V.  20,  as  the  warriors  of  the  Lord,  who,  leaving  their  courses,  descend  to  fight 
for  Israel  against  Sisera  and  that  the  morning  stars  are  said  in  Job  xxxviii.  7  to 


440  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    PROPHETISM.  [§  196. 

have  joined  with  the  angels  in  celebrating  the  morning  of  creation,  just  as  in  ix. 
13,  xxvi.  13  (according  to  the  most  jjrobable  interpretation  of  these  passages),  a 
poetical  application  is  made  of  mythological  notions  of  a  restraining  of  sidereal 
powers  (1).  The  greater  the  danger  to  the  Israelites,  surrounded  as  they  were 
by  Sabaeanism,  of  being  seduced  into  a  worship  of  the  heavenly  bodies, — (how 
the  seductiveness  of  the  sight  of  the  sun  and  moon  is  depicted  in  Job.  xxxi.  26) 
(2), — the  more  important  was  it  not  only  to  declare  Jehovah's  superiority  to  the 
heavenly  bodies,  and  to  forbid  their  adoration,  Deut.  iv.  19,  xvii.  3,  but  also  to 
maintain  such  a  view  concerning  them  as  might  of  itself  exclude  all  worship  of 
them.  This  is  done  from  Gen.  i.  14  onward.  The  heavenly  bodies  are  declared 
to  be  merely  ligTit-learers  (nhJ^D),  created  by  God,  and  as  such  subserving  earthly 
purposes  (comp.  Ps.  civ.  19  sqq.).  They  manifest,  indeed,  by  their  splendor  and 
their  course,  the  greatness  and  wisdom  of  the  Creator  (Ps.  viii.  4,  xix.  5,  Amos 
V.  8,  Job  ix.  9,  xxxviii.  31  sq.),  but  their  brilliancy  admits  of  no  comparison  with 
the  Divine  glory,  xxv.  5.  Thus  they  are  the  hosts  of  God  whom  his  almighty 
will  commands  (Isa.  xl.  26  (3),  xlv.  12)  ;  they  serve  to  proclaim  and  to  glorify 
His  judgments  (Joel  iii.  15,  Isa.  xiii.  10,  Hab.  iii.  11  ;  comp.  the  poetical  passage, 
Josh.  X.  12  sq.).  Their  creaturehood  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  they  as  well  as 
the  terrestrial  creation  are  transitory  (Isa.  xxxiv.  4,  comp.  with  li.  6,  Ps.  cii.  26 
sq.). — How,  now,  the  supereminence  of  God  above  the  heavenly  bodies,  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  worship  of  them,  is  expressed  by  the  name  Jehovah  Sabaoth,  is  shown 
in  Isa.  xxiv.  23.  This  passage  is  not  to  be  understood  as  simply  parallel  with  Ix. 
19,  but  as  also  involving  the  thought  that  the  last  judgment,  by  means  of  which 
the  Lord  will  setup  His  kingdom  upon  earth,  will  manifest  the  vanity  of  heathen- 
ism with  its  worship  of  the  heavenly  bodies  and  the  honor  it  has  rendered  to 
them  as  the  tutelary  powers  of  kingdoms.  It  is  possible  that  this  element  in  the  idea 
of  the  Jehovah  Sabaoth  was  the  original  one  in  point  of  time  (so  Vatke),  and  conse- 
quently that  the  name  may  have  come  into  use  in  the  time  of  the  Judges,  chiefly  as 
a  counterpoise  to  the  worship  of  the  host  of  heaven.  But  it  is  more  natural  to 
seek  the  root  of  the  name  in  the  designation  of  the  angel  of  the  Lord  as  the  "  Cap- 
tain of  the  host,"  Josh.  v.  14  sq.,  the^  chief  significance^!  the  appellation  being 
certainly  contained  in  its  reference  to  the  host  of  the  heavenly  spirits. 

(1)  That  the  stars  are  not  represented  as  persons  in  the  passages  cited,  is 
evident  from  the  whole  teaching  of  the  Old  Testament  [although  Baudissen,  i. 
120,  sees  in  it  more  than  mere  personification,  and  thinks  that  in  the  popular  con- 
ception at  least  the  stars  were  regarded  as  beings  similar  to  the  angels.  Delitzsch 
also  (art.  "  Engel''  in  Riehm)  supposes  that  in  the  phrase  "  Host  of  heaven"  the 
idea  of  the  stars  was  sometimes  mingled  with  that  of  the  angels,  and  speaks  of 
an  identifying  view  of  the  angels  and  stars.  Against  this  theory,  see  Kiibel,  art. 
"Engel"  in  Herzog]. 

(2)  Job  xxxi.  26  sq. :  "  If  I  beheld  the  sun  when  it  shined,  or  the  moon  walking 
in  brightness  ;  and  my  heart  hath  been  secretly  enticed,  or  my  mouth  hath  kiss6d 
my  hand." 

(3)  Isa.  xl.  26  describes  how  God  each  night  calls  forth  and  musters  His  starry 
host. 


§  197.]  THE    HOST    OF   THE    HEAVEJS^LY   SPIRITS.  441 

§  197. 
2.   The  Host  of  the  Heavenly  Spirits. 

The  Old  Testament  speaks  of  the  host  of  heavenly  spirits,  the  armies  of  the  Sons 
of  God,  the  angels,  in  a  threefold  aspect  (1).  Firstj  they  form  the  higher  church 
which,  standing  at  the  head  of  the  choir  of  the  universe  (Ps.  cxlviii.  2,  cl.  1), 
adores  God  in  the  heavenly  sanctuary.  It  has  already  been  remarked,  when  treat- 
ing of  the  doctrine  of  the  Shekhina  (§  63),  that  the  indwelling  of  God  in  the 
earthly  sanctuary  corresponds  with  the  presence  of  God  in  the  heavenly  sanctuary, 
which,  like  the  former,  bears  the  name  of  ID'H  (used  for  the  first  time  in  the 
Davidic  Psalms),  Ps.  xi.  4  (3).  From  this  central  point  of  the  Divine  glory, 
proceed  all  God's  manifestations  of  grace  and  judgment  to  the  world  (Mic.  i.  2  sq., 
Hab.  ii.  30,  Zech.  ii.  17  (a. v.  13)  ;  hence  the  prayer,  Isa.  Ixiii.  15)  (3).  This  is  the 
sphere  of  the  adoring  higher  church  (4)  of  the  sons  of  God,  D'?**  'J?  ;  comp.  Ps. 
xxix.  1,  9  (5),  but  especially  Ixxxix.  6-8,  wliere  the  sons  of  God  are  called  the 
congregation  of  the  saints,  D'ti'^p  /Hp,  who  are  constantly  praising  the  wonders 
of  Divine  grace,  with  special  reference  in  this  passage  to  His  gracious  counsel  in 
the  choice  of  the  house  of  David.  Their  near  relation  to  God  is  shown  ver.  7, 
where  they  are  designated  as  D'^^lp  IID  (the  council  of  the  saints).  When,  then, 
it  is  said  in  this  passage  v.  7  sq.,  "  God  is  greatly  to  be  feared  in  the  council  of 
His  saints,  and  to  be  had  in  reverence  of  all  them  that  are  about  Him  ;  O  Lord 
God  of  Hosts,  who  is  like  unto  Thee  V '  the  reference  of  this  name  of  God  to  the 
angelic  host  is  unmistakable.  The  heavenly  hosts  do  not  appear  as  literally  an 
assembly  of  heavenly  councillors — a  divan,  as  some  have  represented  the  matter 
— either  here  or  in  the  vision  of  the  heavenly  assize,  Dan.  vii.  9  sqq.  (6).  The 
meaning  of  this  passage  is  rather,  that  the  heavenly  hosts,  as  the  appointed 
instruments  of  executing  God's  judgments,  are  also  to  be  the  ioitnesses  of  His 
counsels  (7).  So,  too,  the  heavenly  host  appear,  1  Kings  xxii.  19  sqq..  Job  i.  sq., 
assembled  around  the  Lord,  not  that  He  may  take  counsel  with  them,  but  that 
they  may  announce  to  Him  their  execution  of  His  behests  (comp.  Zech.  i.  8  sqq. 
concerning  the  celestial  horsemen  who  walk  to  and  fro  through  the  earth),  and 
receive  His  further  commands. 

Secondly — and  this  is  the  point  of  view  in  which  the  heavenly  host  is  chiefly 
represented^they  are  the  messengers  of  Ood  (D'JK7P),  the  instruments  of  ex- 
ecuting His  will  in  grace  and  in  judgment  for  the  deliverance  of  His  people 
and  the  subjugation  of  His  enemies;  see  Ps.  ciii.  20  sq.,  cxlviii.  2.  This 
implies  that  God's  government  is  carried  on  by  the  means  of  personal  and  living 
powers.  Divine  providence  is.  generally  speaking,  a  living  activity,  everywhere 
present,  seeing  and  knowing  all  things  (7)  ;  hence  it  is  symbolically  designated, 
Zech.  iv.  10  (comp.  Ps.  cxxxix.  7),  as  the  seven  eyes  of  God  which  run  to  and 
fro  throughout  the  whole  earth.  All  the  powers  and  elements  of  nature  sub- 
serve this  providence,  as  it  is  expressed  (according  to  the  prol)able  cnnstraction) 
in  Ps.  civ.  4  :  "He  makes  the  winds  His  messengers,  the  flames  of  fire  His  ser- 
vants" (comp.  §  61,  note  4).  But  for  the  purposes  of  His  kingdom  and  for  the 
special  service  of  His  people.  He  has  chosen  the  heavenly  spirits,  who  are  the 
pompanions  of  man  ;  comp.  as  chief  passages,  e.g.  xci.  11,  xxxiv.  (8).     But  here, 


442  THE  THEOLOGY   OF   PROPHETISM.  [§  197. 

too,  the  heavenly  host  is  represented  as  a  Divine  army  ;  in  Gen.  xxxii.  2,  a  camp 
of  God  (njnip)  being  spoken  of  as  surrounding  and  protecting  Jacob,  with  which 
comp.  ^  Kings  vi.  16,  Josh.  v.  14  sq.  Still  further  with  regard  to  the  employment  of 
the  heavenly  host  as  the  messengers  of  Ood,  the  following  passages  should  be  observed  : 
in  Zech.  iii.  7,  it  is  said  to  Joshua  the  high  priest,  that  God  will  give  him  leaders 
from  among  the  angels  that  stand  before  him  ;  comp.  also  Job  v.  1.  Especially 
important  also  is  the  passage  in  the  speech  of  Elihu,  xxxiii.  33.  We  do  not 
quote  this  passage,  as  many  do,  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  angels  of  a  higher 
rank.  The  Y^'Q  '=1^'?^,  angelus  interpres,  'y,^'''?'?  in^  is  not  the  angel  of  unparalleled 
dignity  raised  above  a  thousand  others, — the  angel  of  the  covenant  (as  many,  in- 
cluding Schlottman  and  Delitzsch,  understand), — but  an  angel  out  of  the  thou- 
sand, i.e.  such  an  one  as  God  has  a  thousand  of,  f  v?  here  signifying  not  his  rep- 
resentation of  man  before  God,  but  that  he  is  the  interpreter  of  God's  will  to 
man.  He  is  sent  by  God  to  show  to  fallen  man  his  uprightness  [or  duty],  i.e.  to 
lead  him  to  repentance  and  sincere  confession  of  sin,  that  so  he  may,  according 
to  ver.  24,  find  favor  with  God.  In  opposition  to  Satan,  whose  occupation  it  is 
to  ruin  men.  Job  i.,  God  has  thousands  of  angels  whose  business  it  is  to  be  active 
in  the  deliverance  of  human  souls. 

Thirdly  the  hosts  of  heavenly  spirits  are  also  appointed  to  be  Hjs  attendant 
witnesses,  and  partially  Sis  instruments  when  He  appears  in  His  royal  and  judicial 
glory.  This  is  already  alluded  to,  Deut.  xxxiii.  2,  the  sense  of  the  passage  natu- 
rally being,  not  that  the  angelic  host  remained  in  heaven,  but  that  they  were  wit- 
nesses of  those  revelations  in  which  they  themselves  took  an  active  part,  the 
Lord  appearing  as  lawgiver  in  the  midst  of  His  heavenly  host.  Comp.  Ps.  Ixviii. 
17,  where  God  is  represented  as  seated  upon  His  throne  on  Zion,  surrounded  by 
the  chariots  or  cavalry  of  the  angelic  hosts.  The  expression  QTi '??  ^31,  here 
used,  places  the  latter  in  the  light  of  a  heavenly  band  of  warriors  whom  God  is 
leading  to  battle  against  His  enemies,  and  for  the  protection  of  His  people.  The 
connection  of  the  name  Jehovah  Zebaoth  with  this  notion  is  shown  especially  by 
Isa.  xxxi.  4  (9)  ;  and  hence  it  is  plain  in  what  sense  this  name  is  to  be  regarded 
as  designating  Jehovah  as  .the  God  of  battles.  Lastly,  the  heavenly  host  form 
Jehovah's  retinue  at  the  fi?ial  revelation  of  His  judgment.  The  heavenly  hosts  are 
the  heroes  whom,  according  to  Joel  iii.  11,  He  leads  down  into  the  valley  of  Je- 
hoshaphat ;  they  are  the  saints  with  whom,  according  to  Zech.  xiv.  5,  He  ap- 
pears upon  the  Mount  of  Olives  in  the  decisive  hour  of  the  last  conflict  of  the 
covenant  people.  Compare  the  description  of  the  procession  of  the  heavenly 
arpaTEVfiuTa,  Rev.  xix.  14. 

(1)  The  two  last  expressions  have  already  been  discussed  in  §  61. 

(2)  Ps.  xi.  4  :  "  The  Lord  is  in  His-  holy  temple,  the  Lord's  throne  is  in 
heaven." 

(3)  Mic.  i.  2:  "The  Lord  from  His  holy  temple  ;  ...  the  Lord  cometh  forth 
out  of  His  place."  Hab.  ii.  20  :  "  The  Lord  is  in  His  holy  temple  :  let  all  the 
world  keep  silence  before  Him."  Zech.  ii.  13  :  "Be  silent,  6  all  flesh,  before  the 
Lord  :  for  He  risetli  up  out  of  His  holy  habitation."  Isa.  Ixiii.  15  :  "Look  down 
from  heaven,  and  behold  frOm  the  habitation  of  Thy  holiness  and  Thy  glory." 

(4)  What  was  said  Isa.  vi.  of  the  adoring  seraphim,  on  which  see  §  191),  l)e- 
longs  here. 

(5)  Ps.  xxix.  1  :  The  angels  are  called  sons  of  God  (comp.  §  61,  aote  2),  who 


§  198.]     KESULT  WITH  RESPECT  TO  THE  NAME  JEHOVAH  SABAOTH.        443 

give  to  the  Lord  glory  and  strength  ;  it  is  of  them  that  it  is  said,  ver.  5,  that  while 
the  voice  of  the  Lord  goes  forth  in  tlie  storm  over  the  whole  earth,  "  in  His  tem- 
ple all  speak  of  His  honor."     (Luther's  transl.,  "  all  speak.   Honor  !") 

(6)  Dan.  iv.  17,  indeed,  differs  in  this  respect.  But  here  Nebuchadnezzar,  when 
he  speaks  of  a  "  decree  of  the  (heavenly)  watchers"  and  "the  word  of  the  holy 
ones,"  is  giving  utterance  to  a  purely  heathen  notion,  for  which  Dan.  v.  21  after- 
ward substitutes  the  correct  expression,  "decree  of  the  Most  High." 

(7)  See  the  description  of  the  cherubim,  §  119. 

(8)  Ps.  xci.  11  :  "  The  Lord  gives  His  angels  charge  of  the  pious  man,  to  keep 
him  in  all  his  ways."  And  xxxiv.  7  :  "The  angel  of  the  Lord  encamps  round 
about  them  that  fear  Him." 

(9)  Ewald,  nistoryof  the  People  of  Israel^  iii.  p.  62,  relies  chiefly  upon  the  passage 
cited,  and  is  inclined  to  consider  the  meaning  of  the  name  which  makes  it  desig- 
nate God  as  Him  who  comes  witli  all  His  heavenly  hosts  to  help  the  armies  of 
Israel,  as  the  original  one.  He  thinks,  also,  that  the  name  took  its  rise  at  some 
time  when  the  army  of  Israel,  strengthened  by  the  hosts  of  the  Lord  descending 
from  heaven  for  their  help,  put  their  enemies  to  flight.  [Comp.  also  Lehre  von 
Oott^  ii.  p.  339.]  The  passage  is  certainly  a  chief  passage,  but  still  only  one  of 
the  chief  passages. 

§198. 

Result  with  respect  to  the  Name  Jehmah  Sdbaoth. 

In  summing  up  what  has  been  said,  we  find  that  the  significance  of  the  doctrine  of 
JehovahSabaoth  consists  in  the  fact  that  it  teaches  us  to  recognize  not  only  the 
supermundane  p^er  and  glory  of  the  living  God, but  also  makes  Him  known  to  us 
as  interposing,  accoKding  to  His  free  and  sovereign  will,  in  the  affairs  of  the  world, 
and  therefore  not  bourKl  to  the  elements  or  forces  of  nature  which  obey  Him  ;  but  as 
having,  on  the  contrary ,\ot  only  these  but  also  the  spiritual  powers  of  the  heavenly 
world  at  His  disposal  for  n^e  execution  of  His  will  on  earth  (1).  Hence  this  name 
not  only  expresses  the  contra^^between  Himself  and  a  deification  of  the  heavenly 
bodies,  but  also  the  general  comrast  between  Himself  and  those  heathen  deities 
which  are  absorbed  in  nature  and  thQworld.  Thus  the  contemplation  of  the  Lord 
of  the  heavenly  hosts  is  expanded  to  tlitti^f  the  Omnipotent  liuler  of  the  Universe. 
So  (according  to  what  was  remarked,  §  195)  Ps.  xxiv,  10  ;  Isa.  vi.  3,  li.  15,  liv.  5 
(2)  ;  Amos  ix.  5,  etc.  The  ghief  passage,  however,  in  this  respect  is  Jer.  x.  16 
in  its  connection  with  vers.  1-10.  The  name,  however,  as  more  nearly  defining 
the  idea  of  Jehovah  (comp.  what  is  said  on  this  subject,  §  41),  refers  pre-eminent- 
ly to  the  regal  acts  of  God,  especially  so  far  as  these  concern  His  battles, 
victories,  and  other  manifestations  of  Divine  sovereignty  for  the  protection  of  His 
covenant  people  in  opposition  to  a  world  which  strives  against  them,  as  is  proved 
by  numerous  passages  in  the  Psalms  and  prophets  ;  comp.  besides  those  above 
cited,  Ps.  xlvi.  7,  11,  Ixxx.  7,  14.  The  absence  of  the  name  from  the  monu- 
ments of  the  Hhokhraa  is  explained  by  the  circumstance  that  these  do  not  relate 
to  the  revelation  of  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  while  its  absence  from  the  Pentateuch 
is  accounted  for  by  the  inconsiderable  part  played  by  the  heavenly  hosts  in  com- 
parison with  tlie  angel  of  the  Lord  (§  61).— Tlie  element  of  Divine  transcendency 
latent  in  the  name,  is  subsequently  embodied  in  the  Divine  appellation,  "the  God 
of  heaven,"  which  occurs  Dan.  ii.  37,  44,  and  in  some  passages  of  the  Books  of 
Esther  and  Nehemiah, 


444  THE  THEOLOGY   OF   PROPHETISM.  [§  199. 

(1)  [Schrader  ("  Derursprungliche  Sinn  des  Gottesnamens  Jahve"  intheJahrl). 
fill' protest.  Theol.  1875)  designates  tliis  explanation  of  the  name  as  "  the  entirely  ex- 
ternal conglomerate  of  almost  all  the  principal  attempts  which  are  generally 
made  to  explain  it."  But  it  is  certainly  a  fact  that  both  stars  and  angels  are  re- 
garded in  the  Old  Testament  as  belonging  to  the  army  of  God.  Whether  in  the 
Hebrew  mind  the  expression  "God  of  hosts"  designated  both  must  be  decided 
by  an  examination  of  the  passages  in  which  it  occurs,  and  not  a  priori.  The  result 
is  stated  in  the  text.  It  cannot  be  maintained  that  the  plural  r\1X^^  cannot 
properly  be  used  of  the  hosts  of  stars  and  angels,  since  the  angels  are  mentioned 
in  sucii  passages  as  Deut.  xxxiii.  2  and  Dan.  vii.  10  in  such  a  manner  that  the  idea 
of  hosts  is  very  naturally  implied,  and  since  in  Ps.  ciii.  21  hosts  of  angels  are 
actually  spoken  of.  The  grounds  on  which  Schrader  would  get  rid  of  this  plural 
are  entirely  insufficient.  That  the  plural  TTlK^Y  in  the  few  other  passages  in 
which  it  occurs,  is  used  only  of  earthly  armies  is  not  decisive,  since  no  internal 
reason  can  be  shown  for  not  employing  it  in  relation  to  heavenly  hosts.  The  ab- 
sertion  therefore,  that  "  the  name  cannot.,  according  to  the  usus  loquendi  of  the  Old 
Testament,  have  any  other  signification  than  God  of  the  earthly  armies,"  rests  upon 
a  weak  foundation.  Schrader's  explanation  is  simple,  and  gives  a  unity  of  mean- 
ing, but  it  is  imperfectly  or  not  at  all  in  harmony  with  many  passages  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  he  has  not  once  made  the  attempt  to  show  that  his  view  satisfies  the 
connections  in  which  the  name  occurs.] 

(2)  In  Isa.  liv.  5,  "  The  God  of  the  whole  earth  shall  He  be  called,"  corre- 
sponds with  "The  Lord  of  hosts  is  His  name." 

§199. 

Angels  of  Higher  Order  and  Special  Office. 

The  later  prophetical  books  speak  of  angels  of  higher  order  and  special  calling  among 
the  heavenly  host.  The  cherubim,  treated  of  in  §  119,  where  it  was  remarked  that 
they  never  appear  as  ministering  spirits,  are  not  among  these.  Some  have  also 
regarded  the  seraphim  as  merely  symbolical  beings,  to  be  classed  with  the  cheru- 
bim, since  their  characteristic  features  are  combined  with  those  of  the  cherubim 
in  the  description  of  the  celestial  living  creatures  (C^a)  in  Rev.  iv.  8.  [Comp. 
Cheyne,  Prophecies  of  Isaiah^  i.  ,36,  40-42,  who  takes  the  position  that  the  popular 
notion  of  the  seniph^m  as  angels  is  to  be  rejected. — D.]  Thus  e.j'.  Havernick 
{Theologie  des  Alien  Testaments.,  p.  95)  regards  the  seraphim,  who  represent  the 
ideat  creation  under  the  form  of  light  or  fire,  as  a  modification  of  the  cherubim. 
But  in  the  chapter  in  question  (Isa.  vi.)  the  only  passage  in  which  they  occur, 
ver.  6,  rather  suggests  the  ministry  of  angels ;  though  seraphim  here  cannot  be 
said  entirely  to  correspond  with  the  angelus  interpres  in  Zechariah  and  Daniel,  for 
they  do  not  interpose  as  organs  of  revelation  between  Jehovah  and  the  prophet,  who 
in  ver.  8  is  conscious  that  the  Divine  call  is  a  direct  one.  The  synibolism  of  their 
appearance  is  very  simple.  With  two  wings  they  cover  their  faces, — to  indicate 
that  even  the  most  exalted  spirits  cannot  bear  the  full  vision  of  the  Divine  glory  ; 
with  two  they  cover  their  feet, — to  symbolize  their  reverence  ;  with  two  they 
%) — to  express  the  swiftness  with  which  they  execute  the  Divine  commands. 
In  other  respects  they  are  evidently  represented  in  human  form  ;  for  faces,  hands, 
and  feet  are  spoken  of.  There  is  not  a  trace  of  the  serpent  form  ;  and  the  com- 
bination of  the  name  by  which  they  are  called  with  that  of  the  poisonous  kind  of 
serpent  called  ^7?  is  inadmissible,  if  only  because  it  is  impossible,  according  to  the 


§  199.]  ANGELS   OF  HIGHER   ORDER  AND  SPECIAL  OFFICE.  445 

Old  Testament  view,  to  make  the  serpent  a  symbol  of  anj'tliing  sacred  (2).  The 
derivation  of  the  name  from  the  root  ^1^,  to  hum,  would  seem  to  be  favored  by  the 
particular  recorded  ver.  7,  where  the  seraph,  as  the  divinely-appointed  instrument 
for  the  expiation  and  purification  of  the  prophet's  mouth,  appears  with  celestial 
fire,  were  it  not  that  the  meaning  of  the  verbal  root  is  active,  to  consume  by  fire 
(not  to  glow  with  heat,  or  anything  similar).  Hence  the  tracing  of  the  word,  as 
by  many  earlier  writers,  especially  Steudel,  Theologie  des  A.  T.  p.  225,  to  the 
Arabic  root  sharvpha  (noiilis  fuit),  whence  comes  shariphun  (noble),  is  still,  to 
say  the  least,  equally  admissible  (3).  According  to  this  derivation,  the  seraphim 
would  be  thus  designated  as  being  the  jnost  exalted  among  celestial  spirits,  and 
might  be  regarded  as  the  angelic  princes,  C")^,  subsequently  mentioned  in  the 
Book  of  Daniel,  though  the  name  would  also  correspond  to  the  designation  of 
angels  in  general,  as  D"")'?*?,  Ps.  Ixxviii.  25,  and  nb  '"laj,  Ps.  ciii.  20  (4). 

The  seven  angels  mentioned  in  Ezek.  ix.  as  sent  forth  to  execute  the  Divine  sen- 
tence of  extermination  upon  idolatrous  Jerusalem,  next  come  under  consideration. 
The  passage,  indeed,  by  no  means  implies  that  there  is  a  band  of  seven  angels 
whose  special  vocation  it  is  to  be  the  watchmen  and  guardians  of  Jerusalem.  For 
the  number  seven  is  here,  as  elsewhere  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  sign  that  a  Divine 
operation  is  being  completed,  viz.  in  this  passage  the  Divine  judgment  now  ad- 
vancing to  its  close,  and  there  is  no  necessity  for  having  recourse  to  the  seven 
planet  gods  of  the  Babylonians  (comp.  Diodor.  Biblioth.  ii.  30)  and  the  seven 
Amshaspands  [angels  of  love  and  holiness]  of  the  Persians.  This  heathen  notion 
might  rather  be  regarded  as  the  foundation  for  the  passage  Tob.  xii.  15  concern- 
ing the  seven  holy  angels  :  ol  '!rpo(7ava<pEpovcc  rag  npoaevxag  tuv  dyiuv  Kal  eianopevovTaL 
kvuTviov  7-7/f  66^7jg  Tov  dyiov,  though  this  might  also  be  founded  on  this  vision  of 
Ezekiel.  It  is,  however,  significant  that  in  Ezekiel  a  seventh  angel,  distinguished 
by  his  high-priestly  robe  of  linen,  whose  office  it  is  to  set  a  mark  upon  those  who 
are  to  be  delivered  from  the  judgment  about  to  be  inflicted,  comes  forward  before 
the  other  six  who  are  to  execute  this  judgment.  This  angel  of  special  dignity 
corresponds  to  the  horseman  who,  in  the  vision  of  Zech.  i.  8,  stands  among  the 
myrtle  trees  (  which  symbolize  the  covenant  people),  and  is  evidently  the  chief 
over  those  who  run  to  and  fro  through  the  earth.  To  him  they  bring  their 
report ;  and  he,  upon  receiving  it,  intercedes  with  the  Lord  of  Hosts  for  Jerusalem. 
He  seems  also  to  be  identical  with  the  angel  of  the  Lord  in  Zech.  ch.  iii.,  before 
whom  Satan  stands  to  accuse  Joshua.  In  i.  12  he  is  distinguished  from  Jehovah, 
while  he  yet  appears  in  the  scene  in  ch.  iii.  as  His  representative,  where  the 
words  spoken  are  now  said  to  be  the  words  of  Jehovah,  now  of  this  angel,— thus 
recalling  the  Malakh  of  the  Pentateuch  (§  59  sq.).  His  superior  rank  is  especially 
evident  when  he  is  compared  with  the  '3  13^n  ^x'?'?^,  the  angelus  irderpres  of 
Zechariah,  who  interprets  to  this  prophet  the  meaning  of  the  visions  vouchsafed 
to  him,  but  who  is  never  regarded  as  the  representative  of  Jehovah.  It  is  very 
remarkable  that,  as  Baumgarten  (Die  Nachtgesichte  des  Sacharja,  i.  p.  68)  very 
justly  observes,  this  angel,  in  whom  is  the  name  of  Jehovah,  withdraws  from  the 
history  of  revelation  so  long  as  Israel  is  under  a  visible  ruler  of  the  house  of 
David  ;  but  now,  when  this  visible  rule  is  abrogated,  an  invisible  ruler  again  ap- 
pears, and  attains  a  more  concrete  form,  combined  with  personal  agency,  though 
at  the  same  time  distinguished  from  God. 


446  THE   THEOLOGY   OF    PROPHETISM.  [§  199. 

In  what  has  hitherto  been  said,  the  names  of  the  angels  have  not  yet  been  touched 
on :  these,  viz.  "^S^^'lp  and  ^^T^^J,  first  appear  in  Daniel.  To  begin  with  the 
latter,  "^if^'I^J,  i.e.  nfian  of  God,  is  said  in  the  Book  of  Daniel  to  be  the  angel 
who  explains  the  visions  to  Daniel,  viii.  16,  ix.  31,  thus  answering  to  the  angelus 
interpres  of  Zechariah.  It  is,  however,  the  jHD'D  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  who 
apparently  corresponds  to  the  angel  of  the  Lord  in  Zechariah,  the  horseman 
among  the  myrtle  trees,  who  advocates  the  cause  of  the  covenant  people.  He  is 
called,  X.  13,  "one  of  the  chief  princes"  (D'J!^K-in  Dn;^n  nnX)  ;  and  xii.  1,  "the 
great  prince  which  standeth  for  the  sons  of  thy  people"  fJ^  /;^.  "Ipl'v?  ^''"'^'7  I^H 
'l^J!)  ;  and  in  x.  21,  briefly,  "your  prince"  (D^")"^).  But  nothing  is  said,  at 
least  in  the  Book  of  Daniel,  of  Michael  being,  like  the  ancient  angel  of  the  covenant 
(the  bearer  of  the  DK?,  of  the  Divine  side  of  revelation),  the  descent  of  the  Divine 
nature  into  the  sphere  of  the  creature.  It  is  certainly  true  that  the  later  Jewish 
theology  identified  Michael  with  the  shekhina  (5),  while  among  moderns  Hengsten- 
berg  identifies  him  with  the  Logos.  Even  his  name  is  said  by  the  latter  to  show 
that  we  should  not  seek  for  Michael  in  the  region  of  the  finite.  The  name,  he 
says,  signifies,  Who  is  like  me,  who  am  God,  in  whom  God's  glory  is  mani- 
fested ?  /JSJ'P,  however,  actually  appears,  and  that  pretty  frequently,  in  thf 
Old  Testament  as  the  name  of  a  man,  from  Num.  xiii.  13  to  Ezra  viii.  8.  Foi 
the  rest,  this  name  of  the  prince  of  the  angels  does  not  imply  chiefly  (as  Caspari, 
Ueier  Micha,  p.  15,  insists)  a  humble  acknowledgment  of  the  Divine  incompar- 
ableness  on  the  part  of  the  angel,  but  is  an  actual  statement  concerning  the 
angel  himself,  and  expresses  the  irresistibility  of  him  to  whom  Ood  gives  the  power 
to  execute  His  behests  (6). 

But  another  appearance  in  the  Book  of  Jiafiigl  now  claims  our  attention.  Ac- 
cording to  ch.  X.,  a  man,  called  neither  angel  nor  prince,  but  quite  indefinitely 
in^~iy''X,  appears  to  Daniel  on  the  bank  of  the  Tigris.  This  appearance,  before 
which  his  human  nature  threatens  to  succumb,  is,  as  already  remarked,  hot 
Gabriel.  It  is  the  same  person  who  at  Ulai,  viii.  15-17,  commands  Gabriel  to 
interpret  to  Daniel  the  vision  he  had  received, — the  same  who,  xii.  7,  guarantees 
by  a  solemn  oath  the  fulfilment  of  the  Divine  counsel.  It  is  obvious  that  this 
appearance  must  be  identified  with  him  who,  vii.  13  (comp.  especially  x.  16,  18), 
comes  as  a  son  of  man  in  the  clouds  of  heaven  to  receive  dominion  over  all  nations, 
i.e.  the  Messiah  (see  below),  the  description  of  the  glorified  Christ,  Rev.  i.  13-15, 
being  also  taken  from  Dan.  x.  5  sqq.  (7).  We  next  meet  in  the  Book  of  Daniel 
with  the  remarkable  phenomenon  that  the  ancient  Malakh  becomes,  on  the  one 
hand,  the  angel  Michael,  who,  though  highly  exalted  among  the  angels,  is  still 
hypostatically  distinct  from  Jevovah  ;  while,  on  the  other,  One  appears  whom 
Michael  serves  as  a  helper.  That  dominion  over  the  earth  should  be  given  to 
this  Being,  is  quite  consistent  with  the  description  given  in  ch.  x.  This  unnamed 
Being  declares,  ver.  13,  that  he  has  already  contended  with  D"13  no'?0  "IB?,  the 
prince  of  the  kingdom  of  Persia,  that  Michael  then  came  to  help  him,  and  that 
thus  he  remained  the  conqueror  of  the  kings  of  Persia.  In  ver.  20  sq.  he  proceeds 
to  say  that  he  is  about  to  depart  again  to  fight  with  the  D"^3  IK',  the  prince  of 
Persia,  that  then  the  11^"^^,  the  prince  of  Greece,  will  also  come,  and  that  none  will 
help  him  against  these  two  except  D^lk;  Snd'O,  Michael  your  prince.     It  is  quite 


§  199.]  ANGELS   OF   HIGHER   ORDER   AND   SPECIAL   OFFICE.  447 

erroneous  to  supi^ose  the  princes  of  Persia  and  Greece  to  be  earthly  kings 
(Havernick  and  others),— the  "'i?'  of  Persia  being  in  fact  distinguished  from  the 
kings  of  Persia.  They  are  angels  in  whom  the  power  of  Persia  and  Greece,  which 
exalted  itself  against  the  kingdom  of  God  and  strove  to  frustrate  His  counsel,  is 
personified  ;  and  whether  they  are  regarded  as  tutelary  powers  or  as  representatives 
of  the  national  spirit,  is  a  matter  of  comparative  indifference. — What  has  already 
been  advanced  will  help  to  facilitate  the  exjilanation  of  the  passage  with  which 
we  shall  close  this  subject,  viz.  Isa.  xxiv.  21.  In  that  day,  says  the  prophet  (in 
which  the  secular  power  shall  be  humbled),  "the  Lord  shall  punish  the  host  of 
the  high  onesonhigh  (DnQa  D'nian  K^i')  and  the  kings  of  the  earth  upon  the  earth, 
and  they  shall  be  gathered  together  as  prisoners  are  gathered  in  the  pit,  and  shall 
be  shut  up  in  the  prison,  and  after  many  days  shall  they  be  visited  "  (8).  And 
first,  the  theory  which  regards  the  D'non  *<3^  as  only  the  high  and  powerful  ones 
of  earth  must  be  rejected,  for  011133  is  evidently  antithetical  to  nn"1!S|n-S;t.  What 
is  here  spoken  of  is,  on  the  contrary,  a  judgment  in  the  invisible  world  corre- 
sponding to  the  judgment  upon  the  mighty  ones  of  earth.  This  judgment  in  the 
invisible  world,  viewed  in  the  light  cast  upon  it  by  the  passage  in  Daniel,  is  a 
judgment  inflicted  upon  the  spiritual  powers  in  heaven  who  represent  and  answer 
to  the  earthly  powers.  [If  the  expression  "high  ones  on  high"  is  understood  of 
stars  (personified)  or  angels,  or  both,  regarded  and  t€orship2)ed  by  the  heathen  as 
heavenly  powers,  of  whom  punishment  is  figuratively  predicated,  no  literal 
punishment  of  angels  is  taught  in  the  passage. — D.]  We  find,  then,  already  in 
the  Old  Testament,  the  doctrine  further  developed  in  the  New,  that  the  dispensa- 
tions and  judgments  of  God  upon  earth  are  closely  connected  with  corresponding 
events  in  the  higher  world  of  spirits_X9). 

(1)  [Riehm  (art.  "  Seraph"  in  his  Handle drterhuch)  holds  that  the  conception 
of  the  seraphim  was  developed  from  that  of  the  cherubim,  and  that  they  were 
really  cherubim  conceived  of  more  as  angels,  and  not  as  bearers,  but  heralds 
of  the  holy  majesty  of  God  in  the  praises  they  offered.] 

(3)  The  reference  of  the  seraphim  to  the  Egyptian  Serapis  has  only  the  value  of 
a  mere  fancy.  [It  is  advanced  by  Hitzig,  p.  46  sq.,  who  also  maintains  that  the 
conception  of  the  Seraphim  is  connected  with  the  worship  bf  the  serpent,  and 
with  the  serpent  mentioned  in  Num.  xxi.  9.  Against  this  comp.  Riehm  in  the 
article  just  cited.] 

(3)  So  also  Schultz,  Alttest.  Theol,  p.  579,  "Princes." 

(4)  Hofmann  (in  his  Schriftleiceis,  ii.  p.  376)  regards  the  seraphim  after  this 
last  manner.  ,  His  identification  of  them,  however,  with  the  D'SIJI  is  utterly 
improbable. 

(5)  Compare  the  passages  in  Meuschen,  N.  T.  ex  Tahniide  illustratum,  p.  717 
sqq.,  where  Adhonai,  Michael,  and  Shekhina  are  considered  identical.  It  is  said, 
e.g.,  that  the  three  angels  who  visited  Abraham  were  Michael,  Gabriel,  and 
Raphael,  and  that  Michael  is  the  same  as  Adhonai. 

(6)  It  is  quite  certain,  notwithstanding  all  that  Hengstenberg  says,  that  in  Jude, 
ver.  9,  and  Rev.  xii.  7  sqq.,  Michael  is  not  identified  with  the  Son  of  God.  See, 
in  opposition  to  Hengstenberg,  Hofmann,  Weissagung  und  Erfidlung,  i.  p.  127 
sqq.  ;  Schriftieweis,  ii.  p.  340  sqq. 

(7)  This  view,  which  is  found  among  the  older  theologians,  especially  Chr.  B. 
Michaelis  (Vberiores  adnot.  in  Dan.  p.  372),  is  advocated  among  moderns,  partic- 
ularly by  Schmieder  (in  von  Gerlach's  Blbelwerk),  Hilgenfeld  (Die  jUdische  A'poh- 
alyptik,  p.  47  sqq.),  and  Keil. 


448  THE   THEOLOGY    OF   PKOPHETISM.  [§  200. 

(8)  It  cannot  be  with  certainty  decided  -whether  the  meaning  of  the  last  word 
pp.3,  in  Niph.)  is:  they  shall  be  reserved  for  the  final  judgment,  to  which  2  Pet. 
ii.  4  and  Jude  O  are  parallel  ;  or,  they  are  shut  up  for  a  season  and  then  liberated, 
which  sense  is  favored  by  the  parallel  expression  in  Isa.  xxiii.  17. 

(9)  Post-canonical  Jewish  writings  teach  the  doctrine  of  tutelary  spirits  of  whole 
nations.  The  LXX  have  introduced  this  notion  into  Deut.  xxxii.  8,  where  they 
translate  ote  Siefiepii^ev  6  vipiarog  eOvt],  w?  SuaTTEiprv  vloiig  'A6d/j.,  laTTjasv  bpca  edvuv  Kara 
aptdfxbv  ayyEAuv  deoii  (Hebrew  :  'l^'^^^'  \J|  "1300^).  As  seventy  heathen  nations 
were  enumerated  in  the  table  of  nations,  so  were  there  supposed  to  be  seventy 
angels,  one  for  each  nation  and  language.  Two  more  navies  of  angels  are  men- 
tioned in  the  Old  Testament  Apocrypha,  viz.  Raphael  in  the  Book  of  Tobit  (the 
name— God  heals — referring  to  the  contents  of  the  book),  and  Uriel  in  the  Fourth 
Book  of  Ezra.  According  to  a  Rabbinical  statement,  the  names  of  angels  ascend- 
erunt  inmanu  Israelis  ex  Buhylone ;  and  this  may  be  correct,  inasmuch  as  Baby- 
lonian notions  seem  to  have  exercised  an  influence  upon  the  subsequent  devel- 
opment of  angel  ology,  especially  in  the  Apocrypha. 


§200. 
The  Doctrine  of  Satan. 

Among  the  angels,  the  sons  of  God  (D'tl^Kn  'J^,  as  they  are  called  in  the  Book 
of  Job)  who  appear  before  Jehovah,  we  meet,  in  certain  passages  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, viz.  in  the  prologue  to  the  Book  of  Job,  in  Chronicles,  and  Zechariah,  with 
an  angel  called  It?^!?,  of  crafty  and  hostile  disposition  toward  the  covenant  "people  and 
all  who  fear  Ood,  seeking  to  dep)rive  them  of  the  favor  of  God.^  hit  only  suffered  to 
act  as  His  instrument.  The  word  j^K?  is  properly  an  appellative,  meaning  an  enemy, 
an  adversary :  it  is  thus  used,  Num.  xxii.  22,  of  the  angel  who  obstructs  the  way 
of  Balaam  ;  and  in  Ps.  cix.  6,  where  Luther  incorrectly  translates  it  as  a  proper 
name,  Satan,  as  |£?1i2',  ver.  29  of  the  same  psalm,  shows,  [The  marginal  rendering 
of  A.  V.  is  to  be  preferred,  an  adversary. — D.] 

To  exhibit  the  internal  connection  hetween  the  doctrine  of  Satan  and  the  other  doc- 
trines of  the  Old  Testament,  we  begin  with  two  parallel  passages,  2  Sam.  xxiv.  1 
and  1  Chron.  xxi.  1.  "We  are  here  told  that  David  had  conceived  the  proud,  and 
therefore  God-displeasing,  notion  of  numbering  the  people  (comp.  §  165).  This 
is  thus  expressed  in  the  older  record,  2  Sam.  :  "The  wrath  of  God  moved  David 
(^'PD)  to  say,  Go,  number  Israel. "  The  later  account  (1  Chron.)  says:  '■'■Satan 
stood  up  against  Israel,  and  moved  David."  Thus  that  which  is  by  the  older  rec- 
ord directly  referred  to  Divine  agency,  viz.  that  external  manifestation  of  an  in- 
ward sin  (here  David's  pride),  which  is  necessary  in  order  to  judgment  being  in- 
flicted upon  it  (comp.  §  54.  2),  is  by  the  later  account  attributed  to  a  hostile  spirit, 
to  whom  God  gives  the  power  of  using  the  guilty  inclinations  of  man  to  cause 
Mm  to  fall.  Here,  then,  we  again  meet  with  the  same  fact  which  we  encountered 
in  the  doctrine  of  the  angels,  viz.  that  the  later  record  brings  into  greater  prom- 
inence those  powers  which  are  the  instruments  of  the  Divine  providence.  But 
even  in  the  older  accounts,  that  Divine  causality  which  is  active  in  human  sin 
is  distinguished  from  the  ordinary  Divine  agency  ;  comp.  the  passage  1  Sam. 
xvi.  14-23,  already  briefly  noticed  in  §  G5.  When  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord,  nn 
np',  departed  from  Saul  on  account  of  his  sin,  an  evil  spirit  from  the  Lord 


§  200.]  THE    DOCTRINE    OF   SATAK.  449 

troubled  him,  Hin;  nxrp  n;,n/nn,  wliich  evil  spirit  is  afterward  called,  ver.  15, 
n;,n  O'riS^-nn,  and  more  briefly,  ver.  23,  D'n^X-nn.  Thus  we  find  that  a 
Divine  [i.e.  a  divinely  permitted]  agency,  differing  from  the  Divine  life-giving 
principle  active  in  the  world,  rules  in  the  domain  of  sin,  and  especially  in  the 
province  of  obduracy.  Other  passages  also  point  to  such  potencies  appointed  by 
God  to  be  the  instruments  of  the  Divine  wrath.  Thus  we  are  told,  Isa.  xix.  14, 
that  God  had  mingled  a  D'i!]J?  n'1,  a  pervei;se  spirit,  in  the  heart  of  the  Egyp- 
tians, which,  as  a  matter  of  judgment,  would  render  them  capable  of  acting  only 
in  a  perverse  manner.  To  such  passages  belong  also  those  in  which  the  wrath 
of  God  is  spoken  of  as  a  cuj),  of  which  they  are  compelled  to  drink  who  have  in- 
curred His  judgment ;  comp.  as  the  chief  passage,  Ps.  Ixxv.  8  ;  also  Jer.  xxv.  15 
sqq.,  Isa.  li.  17,  Ps.  Ix.  3.  The  transition  hence  to  the  doctrine  of  Satan  is 
made  by  the  passage  1  Kings  xxii.  19  sqq.  Micaiah  the  projihet  relates  a  vision 
to  the  kings  Ahab  and  Jehoshaphat.  He  saw  the  Lord  sitting  upon  His  heavenly 
throne,  and  all  the  host  of  heaven  standing  on  His  right  hand  and  on  His  left. 
The  Lord  asks  who  will  persuade  Ahab  to  undertake,  for  his  ruin,  i.e.  that  he 
may  meet  his  death,  a  war  against  the  Syrians.  Then  the  spirit  (n^"'n,  incorrectly 
translated  "  a  sj^rit")  comes  forth  from  among  the  heavenly  host,  and  says  :  I  will 
persuade  him.  The  Lord  says:  Wherewith?  The  spirit  answers:  I  will  be  a 
')pj^  nn  (a  lying  spirit)  in  the  mouth  of  all  his  prophets.  The  Lord  says  :  Thou 
shalt  persuade  him,  and  also  prevail ;  go  and  do  so.  Here,  then,  that  power 
which  is  instrumental  in  bringing  about  the  Divine  judgment  hovers  heticeeti  2)e}'- 
sonijication  [or  figurative  imagery]  and  pro^jer  ferwnal  exutence.  The  advance  to 
the  actual  doctrine  of  Satan  is  not,  however,  made  by  merely  representing  the 
principle  which  tempts  man  to  sin  as  concrete  personality,  but  consists  especially 
in  the  fact  that  Satan,  though  absolutely  dependent  on  the  Divine  will  with  re- 
gard to  what  he  effects,  acts  from  a  disposition  hostile  to  man.  This  is  hinted,  1 
Chron.  xxi.  1,  in  the  standing  up  of  Satan  against  Israel,  and  still  more  promi- 
nently brought  forward  in  the  prologue  to  Job,  ch.  i.  sqq.  It  is  true  that  Satan 
there  appears  in  the  midst  of  the  D'tlh'^n  "ja  [the  sons  of  God, or  angels]  ;  but  he 
comes  from  a  wandering  excursion  over  the  earth,  which  he  has  evidently 
undertaken  from  hostility  to  men.  It  is  evident  that  he  does  not  question 
Job's  righteousness  for  the  sake  of  affording  an  occasion  for  confirming  it, 
which  is  the  purpose  of  God's  counsel,  but  because  he  hopes  that  Job's 
piety  will  not  endure  temptation,  and  that  he  will  thus  cease  to  be  an  object  of 
the  Divine  complacency.  That  he  may  bring  calamity  upon  Job,  the  Lord  allows 
Satan  the  free  disposal  not  only  of  the  elements, — the  tempest,  and  the  fire  of 
heaven, — but  also  of  human  beings  (the  nomadic  hordes),  and  at  length  he  is  per- 
mitted to  smite  him  with  a  most  terrible  disease.  But  he  is  obliged  to  obtain 
from  God  the  powder  of  effecting  all  this  ;  and  the  limit  to  the  injury  he  is  allowed 
to  inflict  is  set  by  the  will  of  God  ;  comp.  ii.  6. 

Of  special  significance,  however,  is  the  position  of  Satan  with  respect  to  the  cov- 
enant people.  This  is  shown  with  particular  clearness  in  Zech.  iii.,  while  it  is  also 
briefly  alluded  to  1  Chron.  xxi.  The  vision  in  Zechariah  is  as  follows  :— Joshua 
the  high  priest  stands  in  unclean  garments  before  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  and  Satan 
stands  at  his  right  hand  to  accuse  him.  The  Lord  repels  with  threats  the  accusa- 
tions of  Satan,   acquits  the  high  priest,   and  commands  him,  as  a  token  of  his 


450  THE  TMEOLOGY    OP   PEOPHETISM.  [§  200. 

acquittal,  to  put  on  clean  festal  garments.  This  passage  has  been  by  some  expos- 
itors most  erroneously  referred  to  the  slanders  uttered  against  the  people  and 
Joshua  at  the  Persian  court  ;  for  how  could  an  accusation  to  the  Persian  king  be 
possibly  represented  by  the  prophet  as  being  at  the  same  time  an  accusation  to 
the  Lord  ?  The  high  priest  is  the  representative  of  the  people  (1).  He  is  accused 
before  the  Lord,  not  on  account  of  his  own  sins  as  an  individual,  but  in  his  capac- 
ity of  high  priest.  His  priestly  garments  are  defiled.  Satan  aiSrms  that  for  this 
sinful  people  there  is  no  valid  mediation  before  God  ;  that  Israel  is  rejected  because 
there  is  no  longer  an  atonement  for  them.  The  Lord  will,  however,  have  pity, 
according  to  ver.  2,  on  this  brand  plucked  from  the  fire,  the  remnant  of  His 
people,  and  will  not  regard  their  sin.  He  therefore  causes  the  high  priest  to  be 
clothed  in  clean  garments,  thus  acknowledging  the  validity  of  the  high-priestly 
mediation,  though  with  an  intimation,  ver.  8,  that  the  perfect  atonement  for  the 
people  is  to  be  effected  only  by  the  Messiah.  Thus  the  work  of  Satan  is  to  ques- 
tion the  forgiveness,  the  justification  of  the  church,  in  which  sense  he  is  called, 
Rev.  xii.  10,  "  the  accuser  of  our  brethren."  Hence  he  is  here  represented  as  the 
opposite  of  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  who,  according  to  Zech.  i.  12  (like  the  high 
priest  on  earth),  stands  before  the  Lord  to  intercede  for  the  people.  With  respect 
also  to  his  agency  among  men,  Satan,  who  desires  (Job  i.)  to  destroy  the  souls  of 
men  (see  the  ^particulars,  §  197),  forms  a  contrast  to  the  I"?!?  "^^'P,  Job  xxxiii.  23, 
whose  occupation  it  is  to  excite  men  to  repentance  and  confession  of  sin,  that  their 
souls  may  be  rescued  from  destruction. 

The  allusion  just  made  to  the  organic  connection  between  the  doctrine  of  Satan 
and  other  Old  Testament  doctrines,  testifies  decidedly  against  the  theory  which 
derives  it  from  the  Persian  religion  (1).     Quite  apart   from  the  fact  that  in  pre- 
Babylonian  times,  to  which  the  Book  of  Job  must  unquestionably  be  referred  (2), 
the  notion  of  Persian  influence  is  inconceivable,  the  Satan  of  the  Old  Testament 
does  not  have  essential  characteristics  which  must  be  jiresent  to  justify  a  com- 
parison with  Ahriman.     [For]  the  monism  of  the  Old  Testament  utterly  excludes 
the  admission  of  a  hostile  principle  opposed  from  eternity  to  God  ;  nor  does  it 
know  as  yet  of  a  kingdom  of  darkness  over  which  Satan  presides  with  relative 
independence.     The  Satan  of  the  Old  Testament  is  not  as  yet  the  apx(jv  tov  k6(7/iov 
of  the  Neic    Testament,  which  discloses  the  fiddt;  tov  aaravd  only  along  with  the 
completion  of  revelation.     The  New  Testament  doctrine  of  the  aoafio^,  and  of  its 
antagonism  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  finds  its  parallel  in  the  Old  Testament  in  the 
conflict  between  the  secular  monarchies  and  the  kingdom  of  God  in  Israel ;    but 
though  (as  we  have  seen  in  the  preceding   section)  this  conflict  is  in  Dan.  x. 
and  Isa.  xxiv.   connected  with  occurrences  in  the  world  of  spirits,  Satan  does 
not  appear  upon  the  scene. 
r  l^lMM-^yiiJL  Of  other  evil  angels  nothmg  is  distinctly  tanghtin  the  Old  Testament.     By  Asazel, 
•Wmsvo-KJ^gv.   xvi.,  we  must  probably  understand,  according  to  what  was  said,  Part  I. 
^^^^^     (§  140),  an  evil  spiritual  power  whom  we  may  (with  Hengstenberg)  connect  with 
~r^  the  Satan  of  the  later  books,  though  in  the  Old  Testament  itself  the  middle  terms 
"^"^    ,    necessary  to  prove  the  connection  of  the  two  do  not  exist. 

It  is  true  that  the  destroyers  (D'npO),  who  are  in  Job  xxxiii.  22  contrasted  with 
the  V'/f?  "Wl^^  nm&t  probably  be  referred  not  to  fatal  diseases,  but  to  angels;  this 
does  not,  however,  imply  that  the  Old  Testament  teaches  the  doctrine  of  a  special 


§  201.]      DISTINCTION  BETWEEN  CEKEMONIAL  AND  MORAL  LAW.  451 

class  of  angels  of  death,  like  the  angel  of  death  (Samael)  of  the  later  Jewish  the- 
ology. It  is  not  the  nature  of  these  angels,  but  the  Divine  commission,  which  makes 
them  destroyers.  So  also  in  Ps.  Ixxviii.  49,  the  Uys  '^^^t?  are  not  evil  angels,  who 
would  have  been  called  D-;n  D'DxSd,  but  angeli  malorum,  angels  of  evil,  w^ho  min- 
istered in  the  Egyptian  plagues  as  the  instruments  of  God,  the  collective  concep- 
tion of  the  j"i'nt^D,  who,  according  to  Ex.  xii.  18,  23,  executes  the  last  judgment 
upon  the  Egyptians,  but  who,  as  the  n'ni2/D  IJxSo,  2  Sam.  xxiv.  16,  1  Chron.  xxi. 
15,  comp.  Isa.  xxxvii.  36,  is  the  angel  of  the  Lord  (3).  The.  spectral  being  ri'VS, 
Isa.  xxxiv.  14,  i.e.  nocturna  [A.  V.  screech-owl,  better  night  monster\  regarded  by 
the  Talmudists  as  a  demon  who  specially  lies  in  wait  [by  night]  for  children,  and 
the  Vry!^}D^  xiii.  21,  by  which  goat-footed  demons  are  usually  understood,  cannot 
of  course  be  comjirised  in  the  category  of  evil  angels,  apart  from  the  fact  that  not 
a  word  is  said  in  these  passages  concerning  the  real  existence  of  such  sprites  (4). 
[They  were  probably  mere  ci-eatures  of  the  popular  superstition. — D.] 

(1)  [Comp.  the  judgment  of  Ewald  {Lehre  von  Gott,  ii.  p.  298  sq.)  :  "  Down  to 
Zech.  iii.  3,  the  whole  conception  of  Satan  in  its  origin  and  significance  is  so 
purely  Hebraistic,  that  nothing  can  be  more  groundless  and  preposterous  than  to 
derive  it  from  abroad.  To  suppose,  as  has  been  done  of  late,  that  a  Persian, 
origin  of  Satan  is  firmly  established  is  entirely  unhistorical  and  without  founda- 
tion." Hitzig  also  observes,  p.  66  :  "  The  idea  of  Satan  might  very  well  proceed 
from  the  national  development  of  theological  thought."] 

(2)  [Comp.  Strack  in  Zockler,  i.  p.  157  sqq.] 

(3)  The  saying  of  Ode  {De  angelis,  p.  741),  Deum  ad  puniendos  malos  homines 
mittere  bonos  angelos,  et  ad  castigandos  pios  vsurpare  malos,  may  so  far  be  recog- 
nized as  Old  Testament  doctrine. 

(4)  The  later  Jewish  theology,  on  the  contrary,  presents  us  with  a  fully  devel- 
oped demonology,  traces  of  which  are  found  in  the  Asmodseus  of  the  apocryphal 
Book  of  Tobit. 


^ 


SECOND  DIVISION. 
MAN'S  RELIGIOUS  AND   MORAL   RELATION  TO   GOD. 

I.    DISTINCTION   BETWEEN   THE    CEREMONIAL    AND    THE   MORAL   LAW. 

§201. 

The  ceremonial  and  moral  precepts  are  (as  has  been  shown  in  Part  I.  §  84)  in 
the  Mosaic  law  co-ordinate.  The  object  and  meaning  of  the  law  are,  however, 
shown,  as  was  there  pointed  out,  on  the  one  hand,  by  the  motives  set  forth  for 
fulfilling  the  commands  ;  on  the  other,  by  the  fact  that  even  the  ceremonial 
ordinances  are  everywhere  translucent  with  a  spiritual  meaning.  Hence  it  is  but 
a  result  of  that  tuition  of  the  law  which  advances  from  the  outer  to  the  inner, 
that  prophecy  should  carry  out  the  distinction  between  the  ceremonial  and  the 
moral  law,  and  emphatically  declare  that  the  performance  of  the  external 
ordinances  of  the  law,  and  especially  the  offering  of  sacrifice,  were,  as  merely 


452  TtiE  TSEOLOGt   OF   PROPHETISM.  [§  201. 

outward  acts,  worthless  ;  that  the  will  of  God  aimed  at  the  sanctification  of  the 
heart  and  the  surrender  of  the  will  to  God  ;  and  that  the  observance  of  the 
ceremonial  law  had  no  value  except  as  the  expression  of  a  godly  disposition.  The 
words  of  Samuel  to  Saul  (1  Sam.  xv.  23,  §  164,  and  note  3)  may  in  this  respect, 
as  we  have  already  remarked,  be  regarded  as  the  programme  of  prophecy.  The 
same  thought  forms  the  theme  of  many  prophetic  addresses ;  comp.  as  chief  pas- 
sages Hos.  vi.  6,  Amos  v.  31  sqq.,  Isa.  i.  11  sqq.,  Iviii.  3  sqq.,  Jer.  v.  20,  vii.  21 
sqq.,  xiv.  13,  Mic.  vi.,  6  sqq.  (1).  Many  passages  in  the  Psalms  also  declare 
obedience  to  the  Divine  will,  the  thwarting  of  self-will  and  pride,  and  the  strug- 
gle for  the  purification  of  the  inner  man,  to  be  the  sacrifice  acceptable  to  God  : 
comp.  Ps.  xl.  7,  1.,  li.  18  sq.  So,  too,  a  godly  life  and  all  that  appertains  thereto 
is  often  the  subject  of  psalms  in  which  not  a  word  is  said  of  sacrifice  ;  see  e.g. 
how  purity  of  heart  and  conduct  are  brought  forward,  Ps,  xxiv.  4-6,  and  xv.,  as 
the  tokens  by  which  the  genuine  covenant  people  are  to  be  recognized.  On  the 
other  hand.,  however,  the  experience  of  the  Divine  favor  is,  in  the  view  of  tlie 
Psalmist,  connected  with  the  sanctuary  and  its  acts  of  worship,  on  which  account 
these  are  the  objects  of  delight  and  aspiration  ;  comp.  xxvi.  7  sq.,  xxvii.  4,  Ps. 
xlii.  sq.,  Ixiii.,  Ixxxiv.  The  latter  contains  a  hint  of  the  manner  in  which  the 
protest  of  the  prophets  against  the  rites  of  worship  muat  be  regarded.  According 
to  a  view  frequently  advanced,  the  prophets  are  said  to  have  been  opposed  to 
sacrificial  services  in  general,  while  Jeremiah  in  particular  is  declared  to  have 
denied  to  the  whole  sacrificial  system  the  character  of  a  Divine  institution  (so 
Hitzig,  Graf,  and  others) ;  see  vi.  20,  but  especially  vii.  22  sq.  (3).  These  passages 
are  not  to  be  got  over  by  the  distinction  that  the  private  sacrifices  of  the  law 
were  for  the  most  part  voluntary,  that  the  law  merely  prescribed  the  manner  in 
which  they  should  be  offered  (so  Schmieder),  and  that  the  positive  injunction  of 
sacrifice  related  chiefly  to  public  offerijigs,  of  which  Jeremiah  was  not  here  speak- 
ing. Nor  can  Jeremiah's  recognition  of  the  ceremonial  law  be  argued  from  the 
fact  that  he  speaks  so  severely  against  the  desecration  of  the  Sabbath,  since  the 
commandment  to  hallow  it  is  found  in  the  Decalogue.  If,  however,  Jeremiah  had 
actually  rejected  the  whole  law  of  sacrifice,  how  comes  he  to  have  admitted  sacrificial 
service  into  his  announcement  of  the  times  oj  salvation,  not  only  in  xxxiii.  18, — a 
passage  whose  genuineness  has  been  groundlessly  disputed, — but  also  in  xvii.  26, 
xxxi.  14,  xxxiii.  11  ?  The  fact  is,  that  in  the  passages  above  quoted  from  Jeremiah 
and  others,  a  relative  declaration  is  expressed  as  an  absolute  one,  for  the  sake  of  lay- 
ing the  whole  stress  upon  one  member  of  the  sentence  (3)  :  God  so  greatly  desires 
heart  service, — the  demand  of  this  is  so  entirely  the  main  point, — that  He  is  said 
not  to  desire  sacrifice  in  comparison  therewith.  Burnt-offering  and  sacrifice  He 
does  not  desire,  in  the  sense  in  which  a  self-righteous  generation,  assuming  that 
He  needed  such  sacrifices,  and  thinking  to  satisfy  Him  by  such  an  external  per- 
formance, would  offer  them.  Where,  however,  there  is  a  right  state  of  heart,  and 
God  therefore  graciously  accepts  His  people,  external  offerings  are  acceptable  to 
Him  as  proofs  of  inward  devotion  (4).  Hence  the  exhortation,  Ps.  iv.  5,  "  Offer 
p"!??  'D^?,  sacrifices  of  righteousness"  (5),  comp.  Deut.  xxxiii.  19  ;  and  hence  Ps.  li., 
which  in  ver.  18  declares  a  broken  heart  to  be  the  true  sacrifice,  concludes,  ver. 
20  sq.,  with  the  words  :  "  Do  good  in  Thy  good  pleasure  unto  Zion  ;  build  Thou  the 
walls  of  Jerusalem.     Then  shalt  Thou  be  pleased  with  the  sacrifices  of  righteou* 


§  201.]      DISTINCTION  BETWEEN  CEREMONIAL  AND  MORAL  LAW.  463 

ness,  -with  burnt-offerings  and  whole  burnt-offerings  :  then  shall  they  offer 
bullocks  upon  Thine  altar."  It  was  for  this  reason,  too,  that  the  prophets,  as 
has  been  already  shown  with  respect  to  Jeremiah,  expressly  assume  that  the 
church  of  the  future  will  have  an  external  ritual,  though  without  sin-offerings 
(because  sin  is  forgiven).  Thus  Deutero-Isaiah,  e.g.  Ixvi.  1-3,  who  declares  that 
no  temple  is  to  be  built  by  the  sin-defiled  mass  of  the  exiles,  and  calls  their 
sacrifices  an  abomination,  yet  predicts,  Ivi.  7,  Ix.  7,  Ixvi,  20,  for  the  new  Jerusa- 
lem a  new  temple  and  a  new  sacrificial  service  [which  are  best  understood,  in 
accordance  with  the  spiritual  nature  of  Christianity,  in  a  figurative  sense. — D.]. 

These  considerations  also  sufficiently  indicate  the  judgment  to  be  formed  upon 
the  assertion  that  the  above-mentioned  prophets  are  opjwsed  ly  other  prophets 
who  are  charged  with  a  one-sided  Levitism,  for  insisting  upon  the  observance  of 
the  ceremonial  law.  These  latter  are  said  to  be  Ezekiel,  Daniel,  and  Malachi 
(corap.  De  Wette,  Einleitung,  6th  ed.  §233,  8th  ed.  §  278).  Ezekiel,  it  is  true, 
does  set  a  high  value  upon  the  external  ordinances  of  the  Mosaic  law.  And  this 
is  quite  in  keeping  with  the  priestly  character  of  this  prophet,  who  emphatically  de- 
clares, iv.  1 4,  that  he  had  never  in  his  life  eaten  anything  unclean  ;  who  contends, 
as  Jeremiah  had  also  done  (see  above,  and  comp.  also  Isa.  Iviii.  13  sq.),  for  the 
sanctification  of  the  Sabbath,  ch.  xx.,  as  being  a  sign  between  Jehovah  and  His 
people,  ver.  12  ;  and  who  describes  at  great  length  in  the  prophecy,  ch.  xl.-xlviii., 
the  restoration  of  the  Levitical  ritual  upon  a  magnificent  scale  in  the  coming 
times  of  redemption, — a  subject  to  which  Jeremiah  also  briefly  alludes.  That  he 
did  not,  however,  regard  sanctification  as  consisting  in  such  externalism,  is  shown 
not  only  by  his  description  of  the  righteous  man  (in  ch.  xviii.)  as  one  wh©  prac- 
tises no  idolatry,  commits  no  adultery  or  unchastity,  is  not  harsh  to  his  debtor,  is 
merciful  to  the  needy,  and  does  not  seek  to  enrich  himself  in  unrighteous  ways, 
but  more  especially  by  his  predictions,  hereafter  to  be  considered,  of  the  restora- 
tion of  Israel  as  the  covenant  people.  For  the  essential  condition  of  this  restora- 
tion is  to  be  the  outpouring  of  that  Divine  Spirit  which  shall  create  in  them  a  new 
heart,  xi.  19,  xxxvi.  26,  an  inward  conversion  being  thus  reflected  in  these 
external  ordinances.  It  must,  moreover,  be  remembered  how  important  the 
observance  of  these  ritual  observances  was  (as  remarked  §  188),  especially  during 
the  captivity,  as  a,  means  of  fencing  the  pteople  and  protecting  them  against  heathen- 
ism (6).  It  is  true  also  that  Malachi  sternly  rebukes  transgressions  in  the  matter  of 
Divine  worship,  the  offering  of  bad  or  defective  sacrifices,  i.  6-ii.  9,  the  fraudulent 
withholding  of  the  temple  dues,  iii.  7-12  ;  but  he  does  so  because  the  worldly 
and  godless  disposition  of  priests  and  people  was  manifested  by  such  actions. 
Those  sacrifices  which  the  people,  purified  by  judgments,  shall  offer  in  righteous- 
ness (i^i^iyi),  shall  be  pleasant  to  the  Lord,  iii.  3  sq. 

Finally,  with  respect  to  the  Booh  of  Daniel,  the  attempt  to  show  that  it  is  op- 
posed to  the  older  prophetical  books,  by  its  commendation  of  a  legal  externalism, 
is  equally  and  utterly  vain.  Daniel  abstains,  i.  8  sqq.,  from  partaking  of  the 
dainties  of  the  royal  table,  because  he  considers  them  defiling, — not  exactly  in 
the  sense  in  which,  in  the  passage  Hos.  ix,  4  (elsewhere,  §  136,  and  note  2,  dis- 
cussed in  a  different  connection),  the  food  of  the  people  in  captivity  is  called  pol- 
luted (7),  but  undoubtedly  because  at  the  royal  repasts  it  would  he  impossible  to 
avoid  violations  of  the  Mosaic  injunctions  concerning  different  kinds  of   food,  and 


454  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  PROPHETISM.  [§  201. 

tlie  eating  of  flesh  sacrificed  to  idols.  Equal  strictness  is,  however,  shown  not 
only  by  Ezekiel,  xxii.  26,  xliv.  33,  but  also  by  Deutero-Isaiah,  in  the  passages 
against  the  eating  of  swine's  flesh  and  other  unclean  animals,  Ixv.  4,  Ixvi.  17.  It 
has  been  also  said  to  be  a  sign  of  the  externalism  of  DanieUs  religion,  that,  ac- 
cording to  vi.  17,  he  prayed  three  times  daily,  a  custom  alluded  to  so  early  as 
Ps.  Iv.  17.  This,  however,  can  give  offence  to  those  only  who  consider  it  un- 
favorable to  piety  to  have  any  set  times  of  prayer,  while  the  circumstance  of  his 
turning  in  prayer  toward  Jerusalem,  as  prescribed  in  1  Kings  viii.  (comp.  §  62), 
was  now  in  the  captivity  a  very  natural  expression  of  that  yearning  toward  the 
holy  city  which  every  Israelite  felt  who  believed  in  the  Divine  promises.  The 
chief  stress  is,  however,  laid  upon  Dan.  iv.  27,  which  is  said  to  attribute  a  pro- 
pitiatory power  to  almsgiving.  Daniel  here  says  to  Nebuchadnezzar  :  "Where- 
fore, O  king,  let  my  counsel  be  acceptable  unto  thee,  and  break  off  thy  sins  by 
righteousness  (8),  and  thine  iniquities  by  showing  mercy  to  the  poor,  if  it  may 
be  a  lengthening  of  thy  tranquillity."  In  thus  speaking,  however,  he  is  not  in- 
culcating a  righteousness  of  dead  works,  but  pointing  out  to  Nebuchadnezzar 
the  particulars  in  which  especially  his  change  of  heart  would  be  shown,  just  as 
when  the  Apostle  Paul  urged  the  heathen,  Rom.  ii.  7,  Kad'  vTro/uovr/v  epyov  ayadov 
M^av  Kol  Ti/n)v  Kal  afOapaiav  [.tjteIv  :  comp.  ver.  10.  The  exegesis  which  finds  in 
Daniel  the  notion  that  sin  might  be  expiated  and  prosperity  insured  by  alms- 
giving, must  also  find  in  Isaiah  (ch.  Iviii.) — the  prophet  to  whom  none  have  yet 
denied  the  spirit  of  genuine  prophecy — that  fasting  is  indeed  displeasing  to  God, 
but  that  external  acts  of  benevolence  and  the  external  observance  of  the  Sabbath 
furnish  a  claim  to  Divine  favor  and  constitute  human  righteousness  ;  whereas  the 
prophet  is  only  naming  those  external  works  in  which  genuine  piety  will  be  chiefly 
manifested.  How  far  the  Book  of  Daniel  is  from  commending  a  righteousness  of 
dead  works,  is  best  seen  by  the  thoroughly  penitential  prayer,  ch.  ix.,  4  sqq: 

(1)  In  Mic.  vi.  6  sqq.  the  prophet  says  :  "Wherewith  shall  I  come  before  Je- 
hovah, and  bow  myself  before  the  most  high  God  ?  shall  I  come  before  Him  with 
burnt-offerings,  with  calves  of  a  year  old  ?  Will  Jehovah  be  pleased  with  thou- 
sands of  rams,  or  with  ten  thousands  of  rivers  of  oil  ?  shall  I  give  my  first-born 
for  my  transgression,  the  fruit  of  my  body  for  the  sin  of  my  soul  ?  He  hath 
showed  thee,  O  man,  what  is  good  ;  and  what  doth  Jehovah  require  of  thee,  but 
to  do  justly,  and  to  love  mercy,  and  to  walk  humbly  with  thy  God  ?"  A  similar 
testimony  accompanies  every  restoration  of  outward  worship  from  David  on- 
ward. 

(2)  In  Jer.  vi.  20,  the  prophet  represents  Jehovah  as  saying  :  "Your  burnt- 
offerings  are  not  acceptable,  nor  your  sacrifices  pleasing  unto  me  ;"  and  vii.  22 
sq.  :  "I  spake  not  unto  your  fathers,  nor  commanded  them  in  the  day  that  I 
brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  concerning  burnt-offerings  or  sacrifices  : 
but  this  thing  commanded  I  them,  saying,  Obey  my  voice,  and  I  will  be  your 
God,  and  ye  shall  be  my  people  :  and  walk  ye  in  all  the  ways  that  I  have  com- 
manded you,"  etc.  [On  the  latter  passage,  which  has  largely  been  brought  into 
discussion  of  late,  especially  in  what  has  been  written  on  the  legislation  in  the 
Pentateuch,  comp.  on  the  one  side  Wellhausen,  i.  p.  01,  and  Duhm,  p.  232  ;  on 
the  other  side  Bredenkamp,  p.  102  sqq.,  and  Orelli  in  his  sxipplement  to  the  article 
'' Opfercultus  des  A.  T."  in  Herzog,  2d  ed.  xi.  p.  59.  Bredenkamp  has  justly 
pressed  the  point,  that  since  the  recognition,  by  the  supporters  of  the  Graf  school, 
of  Jeremiah's  acquaintance  with  the  book  of  the  covenant  and  Deuteronomy  ex- 
cludes the  explanation  of   the  passage  according  to  which  Jeremiah  denies  to  the 


§  202.]  THE   RUINOUS   NATURE   OF  SIN",  ETC.  455 

Siicrificial  worship  the  character  of  a  divine  and  Mosaic;  institution  ;  they  must 
either,  with  Dulim,  regard  it  as  possible  that  one  and  the  same  Jeremiah 
"favored  the  drift  of  Deuteronomy,  at  least  in  general,  and  for  this  reason  prob- 
ably was  persecuted  by  the  priests  of  his  paternal  city,  Anathotli"  (p.  233),  and 
yet  "rejected  as  well  the  external  worship  of  God  as  the  external  reverence  for 
him"  (p.  231)  ;  or  thej  must  believe  with  Wellhauseu,  that  Jeremiah  in  his  youth 
contributed  to  the  introduction  of  the  (Deuteronomic)  law,  but  subsequently  de- 
clared with  reference  to  tliis  law  :  "the  false  pen  of  tire  scribes  hath  wrought  for 
falsehood  "  (i.  p.  419,  note).  In  opposition  to  the  explanation  given  in  the  text, 
which  is  also  supported  by  Orelli,  Bredenkamp  proposes  another  rendering,  ac- 
cording to  which  ■'"l^"!-'?;^.  is  not  to  be  translated  "concerning,"  which  it  can- 
not mean,  but  "on  account  of,  for  the  sake  of,"  or  what  is  still  more  preferable, 
he  would  read  ^^^-S^*  or  n;i'^  "for  my  sake."  The  meaning  would  then  be, 
that  the  offering  and  the  accepting  of  sacrifices  was  not  the  aim  of  the  divine 
command,  but  that  the  object  of  God  was  to  secure  moral  obedience.] 

(3)  See  how  Winer,  Grammatih  des  neutest.  SpracJiidioms,  sec.  7.  p.  462  sq., 
and  Buttmann,  Orammatlh  des  neutest.  Sprachgeh'auchs,  p.  306,  elucidate  this  sub- 
ject by  a  series  of  examples. 

(4)  As  Samuel  himself,  according  to  the  account  in  the  First  Book  of  Samuel, 
ministered  at  the  sacrificial  service. 

(5)  In  Ps.  iv.  5,  plX  is  not  itself  the  offering  to  be  brought. 

(6)  Ezekiel  may  have  contributed  not  a  little  to  the  Levitical  spirit  which  pre- 
vailed after  the  captivity,  though  its  degeneration  did  not  originate  with  him.  (Art. 
"  Prophetenthum  des  A.  T.") 

(7)  The  passage  Hos.  ix.  4  also  shows  the  importance  attributed  to  sacrifice 
even  by  Hosea,  notwithstanding  his  rebuke  of  the  opus  oj)eratum. 

(8)  It  is  arbitrary  to  make  Hpi:^  here  exactly  =  alms  giving.  [The  only  ground 
for  it  is  the  fact  that  the  Hebrew  word  is  sometimes  used  to  indicate  a  righteous- 
ness which  exhibits  itself  in  acts  of  kindness  and  love.  The  signification  "alms" 
(Theod.  Vulg.)  for  the  Chaldee  word  occurs  in  the  Targums  and  the  Rabbinical 
books,  but  not  in  the  Bible. — D.] 


II.  THE  RUINOUS  NATUBE  OP  SIN.      THE  NEED  OF  A  NEW  DISPENSATION  OF  GRACB. 

§202. 

In  proportion  as  a  consciousness  of  the  inwardness  of  the  law's  requirements 
is  arrived  at,  will  the  conviction  of  sin  become  profound.  It  is  in  this  respect  that 
prophecy,  by  bringing  into  greater  prominence  the  oijposition  in  which  the  people 
stand  to  the  electing  and  sanctifying  purpose  of  their  God,  carries  on  the  office  of 
the  law,  nay,  advances  to  the  perception  that  that  sanctification  of  the  people  at 
which  the  law  aims,  is  unattainable  during  the  present  legal  dispensation,  and 
must,  on  the  contrary,  be  effected  by  a  new  dispensation  of  grace. 

The  tuition  of  the  law,  making  man  conscious  of  the  contrast  he  exhibits  to  the 
Divine  will,  by  holding  this  will  up  before  him  as  in  a  mirror,  and  effecting  a 
conviction  of  sin  by  its  testimony  against  the  people,  Deut.  xxxi.  26, — this  process 
is  one  which  advances  but  gradually.  We  caimot  expect  at  once  to  find  in  the 
Old  Testament  such  an  kniyvuaig  dimpTin^  as  is  expressed  in  Rom.  vii.  When  the 
godly  man  of  the  Old  Testament  meditated  on  the  law,  and  strove  to  live  in 
obedience  thereto,  its  first  impression  was  a  reviving  one,  Ps.  xix.  8  sqq.  ;  Ps.  cxix. 
He  obtained,  by  its  enlightening  effect,  a  delight  in  the  commandments  of  God, 
and  thus  the  law  in  some  sense  became  internal,  as  it  is  said,  xxxvii.  31,  "The  law 


450  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    PROPHETISM.  [§  202. 

of  his  God  is  in  his  heart ;"  and  he  attained  something  of  that  willing  spirit,  li. 
14,  by  which  he  could  say,  xl.  8,  "I  delight  to  do  Thy  will,  O  my  God  :  yea.  Thy 
law  is  within  my  heart."  But  even  in  the  psalm  (xix.)  already  quoted,  the  praise 
of  the  law  is  combined,  13  sq.,  with  a  prayer  for  the  pardon  of  secret  sins  of  in 
firmity  and  for  preservation  from  presumptuous  sins  ;  and  thus  a  feeling  of  man's 
failure  to  come  up  to  the  requirements  of  the  law  finds  expression.  When  David, 
after  falling  into  gross  sin,  prayed,  li.  10,  "Create  in  me  ('Vx")!)  a  clean 
heart,  O  God,  and  renew  a  firm  spirit  within  me;"  and,  ver.  12,  "Uphold  me 
with  a  willing  spirit,"  comp.  cxliii.  10,  he  expressed  an  acknowledgment  that  a 
Divine  imjjartation  of  life,  a  transformation  of  heart,  was  needed  if  the  inward 
state  was  to  be  conformed  to  the  Divine  will. 

Such  an  acknowledgment  is  made  by  pj'ophecy.  But  it  puts  the  question  thus: 
IIow  has  the  nation  conformed  to  its  Divine  destinatio7i  ?  How  far  has  a  community 
consecrated  to  God  been  really  formed  under  the  ordinances  of  the  law?  In 
making  this  inquiry,  jjrophecy  encounters  on  every  side  a  falling  away  from  God, 
which,  after  the  failure  of  every  remedy,  proves  that  the  vocation  of  the  cove- 
nant people  is  not  to  be  realized  under  the  existing  dispensation.  The  covirse 
followed  in  this  respect  by  the  prophetic  addresses  is  generally  as  follows  : — 
1st.  What  has  God  done  for  Israel  ?  has  He  omitted  aught  of  mercy  or  discipline  which 
might  conduce  to  the  deliverance  of  His  people,  as  the  remedy  of  their  faults  ? 
and  2d.  How  have  the  people  requited  His  love  and  care  f  how  can  they  -meet  their 
God  if  He  enters  into  judgment  with  them  ?  Comp.  such  prophetic  passages  as 
Isa.  i.  5,  Mic.  vi.,  Jer.  ii.  1,  iii.  5,  and  many  others. 

To  render  evident  that  relation  of  electing  and  sanctifying  love  into  which 
God  has  entered  with  His  people,  the  prophets  do  indeed  employ  the  figure  of 
fatherhood  and  sonshijy,  discussed  in  §  82.  1  ;  see  e.g.  Hos.  xi.  1  (comp.  §  82, 
note  1),  Isa.  i.  1,  2  sqq.  (1),  xxx.  1,  9,  and  other  passages  there  quoted.  But  the 
iridal  and  conjugal  relation  is  far  more  frequently  used  by  them,  as  the  symhol  of  tlie 
fommunion  into  which  God  has  entered  with  His  people  (2).  This  is  done  especially 
by  the  prophets  Hosea,  Deutero-Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  Ezekiel.  It  is  sufiicient  to 
refer  to  the  allegory  in  Ezek.  xvi.  and  Jer.  ii.  2  sq.,  already  mentioned  in  a  differ- 
ent connection  (§  27,  88,  note  2)  (3).  How  then  does  the  nation  now  apjmir  ?  It  has 
become  a  harlot^  an  adulteress.  In  this  symbol,  sin  is  no  longer  mere  disohedience  to 
the  commands  of  Him  who  has  a  right  to  demand  obedience,  but  is  viewed  as 
being  in  its  inward  and  essential  nature  a  hreach  of  faith,  as  "base  ingratitude  toward 
Him  who  has  first  loved.  It  is  true  that  it  is  chiefly  apostasy  to  strange  gods  and 
to  heathen  practices  in  general  which  are  regarded,  e.g.  in  IIos.  ii.,  Jer.  iii.  1  sqq., 
etc.,  in  the  light  of  whoredom,  as  it  is  expressly  called  in  Lev.  xx.  5.  Still  every 
kind  of  rebellion  against  God  falls  under  this  same  condemnation,  inasmuch  as  in 
every  sin  man  sets  himself  in  opposition  to  Him  who  alone  has  acquired  a  right  to 
the  full  submission  of  the  heart ;  compare  Num.  xiv,  33,  also  e.g.  Isa.  i.  21  (in 
connection  with  the  preceding),  Ps.  Ixxiii.  27,  comp.  with  ver.  26  and  other  pas- 
sages (4).  Considered  in  this  light,  all  boasting  of  human  righteousness  vanishes, 
and  an  overwhelming  feeling  of  guilt  is  expressed  in  many  prophetic  discourses. 
It  is,  first  of  all,  a  common  guilt  resting  upon  the  7mtion,  and  making  the  nation  as 
such — the  whole  community — the  object  of  the  Divine  wrath,  which  is  spoken  of. 
In  Mic.  vii.  9,  e.g.,  it  is  Israel  who  says,  "I  will  bear  the  indignation  of  the  Lord, 


§  202.]  THE    BUINOUS   NATUEE    OF    SIN,  ETC.  457 

because  I  have  sinned  against  Him  ;"  while  in  Deutero-Isaiali,  especially,  it  is 
repeatedly  declared  that  the  people  have  no  claim  with  respect  to  God,  that  all 
their  righteousness  is  vain,  that  they  have  incurred  only  punishment  and  rejection, 
and  are  indebted  for  every  benefit  they  receive  to  the  free  grace  of  God,  xliii.  24, 
xlviii.  8-11,  etc.  In  Dan.  ix.  4  sqq.,  too,  esi^ecially  ver.  18,  the  same  feeling  is 
expressed  (5). 

From  this  general  sinfulness,  even  the  mo7'e_^  religious  part  of  tlie  nation,  the 
servants  of  God,  are  not  so  exempt  as  to  be  contrasted,  as  absolutely  righteous, 
"with  the  'perdita  massa.  An  Isaiah  feels  himself,  vi.  f5,  not  only  to  be  dwelling 
in  the  midst  of  an  unclean  people,  but  also  to  be  himself  a  man  of  unclean 
lips,  and  therefore  to  need  Divine  atonement  and  cleansing  before  he  can  under- 
talie  the  office  of  a  reprover.  Caspar!  {JJeber  Micha,  p.  386)  is  certainly  mistaken 
when  he  understands  the  passage  Mic.  vii.  9  to  exclude  the  godly  from  the  con- 
fession of  sin  there  made  by  the  people.  Deutero-Isaiah  also  declares,  xliii.  27  : 
"Thy  first  father  (i.e.  Abraham  or  Jacob,  comp.  §  74)  hath  sinned,  and  thine 
advocates  (intercessors,  D'V'79)  such  men  as  Moses,  Samuel,  Elijah,  and  other 
prophets,  who  by  their  godliness  and  intercessions  stood  in  the  breach  for  the 
people)  have  transgressed  against  me."  The  same  prophet,  moreover,  in  the 
prayer  Ixiv.  6,  "We  are  all  as  an  unclean  thing,  all  our  righteousnesses  are  as 
filthy  rags  ;  and  we  all  do  fade  as  a  leaf  ;  and  our  iniquities,  like  the  wind,  have 
taken  us  away,"  does  not  exclude  himself  from  this  common  sin  and  guilt  ;  and 
Ps.  cxxx.  3,  "If  Thou,  Lord,  shouldst  mark  iniquities,  0  Lord,  wlio  shall  stand?" 
is  of  general  arpplication. 

The  history  of  the  people  having  thus  shown  that  they  had  failed  at  the  present 
stage  of  revelation  to  attain  that  righteousness  which  avails  before  God,  and  to 
realize  the  purpose  of  their  election,  the  conviction  forced  itself  on  the  mind  that 
a  7iew  dis2)ensatio7i  of  grace  is  needed  ;  in  other  words,  that  God  must  of  His  own 
free  grace  blot  out  transgression,  and,  as  the  passage  Deut.  xxx.  6  (discussed  in 
§  8,  note  4,  and  §  90),  shows,  effect  by  a  new  communication  of  life  that  con- 
formity to  His  will  which  the  law  demands.  The  chief  passages  in  which  this  is 
expressed  are  found  in  Jeremiah  and  EzeTciel.  Thus  in  Jer.  xxiv.  7  the  prophet 
declares  that  God  will  give  to  the  people,  whom  He  will  bring  again  to  their 
own  land,  a  heart  to  know  Him  ;  with  wliich  may  be  compared  Isaiah's  announce- 
ment, that  God  will  in  the  times  of  redemption  give  to  the  people  that  suscep- 
tibility for  the  reception  of  His  word  which  they  now  lack  ;  see  xxix.  18  sqq., 
xxx.  20  sq.,  xxxii.  3,  in  opposition  to  xxix.  9  sqq.,  xxx.  9.  The  2}ri?icipal  pastiage, 
however,  in  which  the  contrast  between  the  future  and  the  old  dispensation 
is  brought  forward,  is  that  important  prediction  of  the  7iew  covenant,  xxxi.  31 
sqq.  :  "Behold,  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  make  a  new  covenant 
with  the  house  of  Israel,  and  with  the  house  of  Judah  ;  not  according  to  the 
covenant  that  I  made  with  their  fathers  in  the  day  that  I  took  them  by  the  hand 
to  bring  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  which  my  covenant  they  brake."  Then 
follow  the  words  D3  "Tlyi'S  '?^??),  which  may  be  understood,  "  when  I  had 
betrothed  them  to  myself,"  or  more  correctly,  "though  I  am  lord  over  them" 
(6).  It  is  further  said:  "But  this  is  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with  the 
house  of  Israel  :  After  those  days,  saith  the  Lord,  I  will  2)ut  my  law  in  their 
inward  parts,  and  write  it  in  their  hearts  ;    and  will  be  their  God,  and  they  shall 


458  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    PROPHETISM.  [§  202. 

be  my  people.  And  they  shall  teach  no  more  every  man  his  neighbor,  and 
every  man  his  brother,  saying.  Know  the  Lord  ;  for  they  shall  all  know  nie, 
from  the  least  of  them  unto  the  greatest  of  them,  saith  the  Lord  ;  for  I  will 
forgive  their  iniquity,  and  I  will  remember  their  sin  no  more."  The  chief 
thino-,  or  rather  the  fundamental  assumption  in  this  new  dispensation  is,  as  the 
passage  from  Jeremiah  expresses  at  its  close,  the  abolition  of  the  old  condemna- 
tion ly  Divine  mercy ;  that  God,  as  the  prophet  Micah  says,  vii.  19,  would  of 
His  mercy  subdue  the  iniquities  of  His  people,  and  cast  all  their  sins  into  the 
depths  of  the  sea.  The  expression  ^J'OJ]J^,  WMy  (he  will  suMue  our  iniquities) 
in  the  last  passage  implies  that  the  sin  of  the  people  had  become  a  power  which 
only  the  grace  of  God  could  overcome.  But  the  whole  difficulty  of  the  task 
of  training  Israel  is  expressed  in  the  passage,  Isa.  xliii.  24,  where  the  God  who 
calls  worlds  into  existence  by  His  word  says,  when  speaking  of  His  many  and  vain 
attempts  to  rescue  His  people  from  their  sins,  "  Thou  hast  made  me  to  serve  with 
thy  sins,  thou  hast  wearied  me  with  thine  iniquities"  (7). 

It  is  through  the  pardon  of  sin  that  occasion  is  afforded  for  the  agency  of  those 
'purifying  and  sanctify ing  forces  which  God  puts  forth, — a  fact  thus  expressed, 
Ezek.  xxxvi.  25-27  :  "I  will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be 
clean,"  etc.  That  which  was  signified  by  the  legal  rites  of  purification  shall  then 
become  a  reality.  Zechariah  also  prophesies,  xiii.  1,  of  the  fountain  to  be  opened 
in  the  times  of  redemption  for  sin  and  uncleanness.  Then  there  will  be  no  longer 
need  to  exclaim  with  Deut.  v.  29,  "  O  that  there  were  such  an  heart  in  them,  that 
they  would  fear  me,  and  keep  all  my  commandments  always  ;"  for  God  will,  ac- 
cording  to  the  prospect  held  out,  xxx.  6  (comp.  §  88),  of  a  circumcision  of  the 
heart,  work  in  them  a  susceptibility  for  the  Divine,  a  willingness  to  perform  His 
will.  The  people  no  longer  encounter  the  law  in  its  rigid  objectivity  ;  "but  God 
will,  in  the  times  of  the  new  covenant,  write  it  in  their  hearts,  and,  as  Ezekiel 
continues  in  the  passage  quoted,  "A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new 
spirit  will  I  put  within  you  ;  and  I  will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of  your 
flesh,  and  I  will  give  you  a  heart  of  flesh  ;  and  I  will  put  my  Spirit  within  you, 
and  cause  you  to  walk  in  my  statutes,  and  ye  shall  keep  my  judgments  and  do 
them"  (comp.  xi.  19  sq. ,  xxxvii.  23-27).  How  that  direct  teaching  of  God 
spoken  of  in  the  passage  of  Jeremiah,  "  They  shall  no  more  teach  every  man  his 
neighbor,"  etc.,  is  combined  herewith,  will  be  subsequently  discussed  (§  223). 

(1)  Isa.  i.  2  :  "I  have  nourished  and  brought  up  children,  and  they  have  re- 
belled against  me." 

(2)  A  view  which  at  the  same  time  testifies  to  the  moral  depth  attributed  by  the 
prophets  to  this  earthly  relation. 

(3)  Ezek.  xvi.  The  people  in  Egypt  was  a  poor,  helpless,  abandoned  child  : 
"  I  passed  by  thee,  and  saw  thee  polluted  in  thine  own  blood.  I  said  unto  thee 
when  thou  wast  in  thy  blood,  Live."  (It  grew  up  a  maiden,  still  in  poverty 
and  nakedness.)  And  when  the  time  was  come  that  God  could  woo  His  people, 
"  I  sware  unto  thee,  and  entered  into  a  covenant  with  thee  (at  Sinai),  .  .  .  thou 
becamest  mine."  According  to  Jer.  ii.  2,  the  leading  in  the  wilderness  was 
the  time  of  espousal,  etc. 

(4)  Num.  xiv.  33  uses  r\1JI  of  the  declension  of  the  people  in  general.  Isa.  i. 
21  :  "  How  is  the  faithful  city  become  a  harlot  !"  The  contrast  exhibited,  Ps. 
Ixxiii.,  between  vers,  30  and  27  is  specially  to  be  observed.     Witli  the  godly  man 


§  203.]  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT   FORM    OF   FAITH.  459 

who  says,  "  God  is  the  strength  of  my  heart,  and  my  portion  for  ever,"  arc  con- 
trasted those  that  are  far  from  God,  that  phiythe  harlot  from  Ilim  ('"]Sp  n^U-b^). 

(5)  Dan.  ix.  18  :  "We  do  not  present  our  supplications  before  Thee  for  our 
righteousness,  but  for  Thy  great  mercies." 

(6)  Comp.  Jer.  iii.  14.  Similarly,  but  too  specifically,  does  Ewald  understand 
"  though  I  was  their  protector."  Luther's  translation,  "  and  I  was  obliged  to 
constrain  them,"  would  give  an  excellent  thought,  but  is  linguistically  incor- 
rect. The  view  of  many  moderns  [even  Orelli,  p.  381],  in  accordance  with  the 
riiitlrjaa  of  the  LXX,  and  making  iV.'^  =  vn3,  to  despise,  to  reject,  is  also  un- 
tenable. Hengstenberg's  explanation,  "Jm^I  betroth  them  to  me,"  anticipates 
the  following  verse. 

(7)  But,  Isa.  xl.  25,  for  His  own  saJce,  because  He  must  maintain  His  own  glory, 
He  blots  out  their  transgressions  and  remembers  their  sins  no  more. 


lU.    JUSTIFICATION   BY   FAITH. 

§203. 
The  Old  Testament  Form  of  Faith. 

Meanwhile  the  just  walked  in  faith  and  had  life  therein.  The  law,  by  always 
pointing  back  to  God''s  electing  grace,  and  onward  to  God's  just  retribution,  as  the 
foundation  of  the  righteousness  of  the  law,  presupposes /a  «YA,  i.e.  such  a  triisting 
suhmission  to  the  covenant- God  as  was  exhibited  in  Abraham''s  believing  adherence 
to  the  Divine  promise.  This  is  in  conformity  with  that  fundamental  declaration. 
Gen.  XV.  6,  "He  believed  in  the  Lord,  and  He  counted  it  to  him  for  righteous- 
ness" (§  83).  Accordingly  the  requirement  of  faith  runs  through  the  entire  Old 
Testament.  The  leading  of  Israel,  from  the  time  of  its  deliverance  out  of 
Egypt,  Ex.  iv.  31,  xiv.  31,  comp.  especially  Deut.  i.  32,  ix.  23,  and  many  other 
passages,  rests  entirely  on  faith.  But  in  proportion  as  its  Divine  election 
seemed  to  human  apprehension  thwarted,  and  the  promise  of  redemption  forfeit- 
ed, by  the  apostasy  of  the  nation  and  the  judgments  thereby  incurred,  the  more 
emphatically  is  it  asserted  how  all-important  faith  was,  as  the  root  of  all  right- 
eousness, and  the  condition  on  which  the  blessing  was  to  be  obtained. 

The  thesis  of  prophetism,  Isa.  vii.  9,  runs  thus  :  "  If  ye  do  not  believe,  truly  ye 
shall  not  remain  \i.e.  be  in  a  firm  and  stable  condition]  ;"  it  is  the  word  of  the 
prophet  to  Ahaz  when  he  sought  help  from  Assyria  (§  181)  ;  comp.  2  Chron.  xx. 
20  (1).  What  then  is  this  faith  ?  Negatively  speaTcing,  it  is  a  ceasing  from  all  natu- 
ral confidence  in  one'^s  own  strength  and  power,  a  renunciation  of  all  trust  in  human 
support  and  assistance.  Accordingly  Jeremiah  thus  describes  imbelief,  xvii.  5  : 
"  Cursed  be  the  man  that  trusteth  in  man,  and  maketh  flesh  his  arm"  (which 
was  just  what  Ahaz  had  done).  Positively,  it  is  a  fastening  or  leaning  ;  for  this 
is  the  proper  meaning  of  |'P??il,  namely,  afasteyiing  [staying  (Ges.)]  of  the  heart 
upon  the  Divine  word  of  promise,  a  leaning  upon  the  power  and  fnitlifnli^ess  of  God, 
by  reason  of  which  He  can  and  will  effect  what  He  chooses  in  spite  of  all  earthly 
obstacles,  and  therefore  a  resting  upon  the  337-11^,  Ps.  Ixxiii.  26.  Compare 
what  is  said  Ps.  cxii.  7  sq.  of  the  just  man  :  Kv;  x^  laS  Ij^DD  :  n'^n'3  nD3  isS  JDJ 
("  His  heart  is  fixed,  trusting  in  the  Lord  ;  his  heart  is  established,  he  shall  not 
be  afraid").     On  its  negative  side,  whereby  faith  renounces  self-chosen   human 


4G0  THE  THEOLOGY   OF   PKOPHETISM.  [§  203. 

ways,  it  is  a  resting  in,  a  quiet  waiting  for  God,  Isa.  xxx.  15,  comp.  with  viii.  17, 
Ps.  Ixii.  6,  and  other  passages,  which  resting  involves  a  fearlessness  of  all  the 
threats  of  men,  Isa.  viii.  12,  and  especially  Isa.  xxviii.  16  :  E^'H'  xS  I'PK|?n  (2). 
On  its  positive  side,  it  is  a  sanctifying  of  the  Lord,  viii.  13,  a  giving  of  glory  to 
His  sole  sovereignty,  comp.  Jer.  xiii.  16.  If  TP^j?  designates  faith  as  the  act  of 
fasteninf,  or  staying  the  heart,  jp^J  and  the  nomen  abstractum  HJION  (which  ac- 
cording to  its  original  meaning,  signifies  firmness,  Ex.  xvii.  13)  denote  the  state  of 
firmness  and  constancy  of  heart  in  cleaving  to  God  and  His  promise.  So  especial- 
ly in  that  chief  passage,  Hab.  ii.  4,  "the  just  shall  live  by  his  faith,"  where  the 
faith  of  the  just  forms  a  contrast  to  the  pride  and  arrogance  of  the  Chaldean, 
who,  according  to  i.  11,  makes  his  power  his  God.  Hence  we  find,  as  already 
shown  (§  83),  that  besides  adherence  to  the  law  as  revealing  God's  commands,  a 
cleaving  to  the  promise  as  revealing  God's  grace,  a  patient  waiting  and  hoping 
for  complete  redemption,  formed  an  essential  feature  in  the  delineation  of  the 
servant  of  Jehovah,  the  religious  and  moral  ideal  of  the  Old  Testament.  Com- 
pare the  other  chief  passage,  Isa.  1.  10,  where  the  faith  of  the  Lord's  servant 
is  contrasted  with  the  violent  conduct  of  those  who  depend  upon  their  own 
efforts,  and  attempt  to  save  themselves  by  their  own  strength  (3). 

In  its  expectation  of  the  fulfilment  of  the  Divine  promise,  the  faitlj  QLthe_01d 
Tegtament  turns  to  the  future.  It  includes  patieme  (vwo/iov^/)  and  hope  (eTinig)  ; 
T}\p,  Isa.  XXV.  9  ;  n\pn,  Urp\  Ps.  Ixii.  6  ;  n|in  (waiting),  Isa.  viii.  15,  Hab.  ii.  3  ; 
Vnin,  hT\\  Ps.  xlii.  6,  etc.  It  is  according  to  this  specially  Old  Testament  form  that 
niarcc  is  illustrated  by  Old  Testament  examples  in  Heb.  xi.  But  the  Old  Testa- 
ment also  exhibits  faith  as  including  negatively  that  renunciation  of  one''s  own 
claims  and  merits  lefoi-e  God  which  arises  from  a  conviction  of  sin,  and  posi- 
tively that  surrender  to  the  sin-annulling  God  and  His  atoning  grace  which  are  essential 
to  \he  fides  salvifca  of  the  new  covenant.  A  chief  passage  in  this  respect  is  Ps.cxxx. 
3_5  (4).  Here  faith  appears  as  a  waiting  upon  the  word  which  proclaims /or- 
giveness  of  sins  ;  but  here,  too,  its  eye  is  directed  to  the  future  (on  which  see 
next  §).  It  is,  however,  in  Deutero-Isaiah  that  this  faith  is  especially  enforced. 
This  book  announces,  not  only  the  vanity  of  all  human  power  and  strength,  declar- 
ing that  all  flesh  is  grass,  and  its  glory  as  the  flower  of  the  field,  and  that  only  the 
word  of  God  abideth  for  ever,  xl.  6  sqq.,  but  (as  also  already  remarked,  §  203) 
proclaims  in  a  series  of  passages  the  nothingness  of  human  merits,  the  insufficiency 
of  all  human  performances  to  attain  a  righteousness  valid  in  God's  sight,  and 
directs  men  to  appropriate  God's  gracious  offers  of  pardon  (5).  The  word  I'P^I?;! 
is  not,  indeed,  used  for  faith  in  its  aspect  of  an  appropriation  of  pardon,  but  the 
act  itself  is  spoken  of.  The  expressions  used  for  it  are  /*<  315^,  to  return,  to  turn 
with  confidence  to,  Isa.  xliv.  22  (6),  or  the  stronger  "^V.  ^Ity,  Hos.  xiv,  2  (7),  etc. 
Also  :  to  seek  God  (iyp3,  ^y\),  Deut.  iv.  29  ("with  all  the  heart  and  with  all  the 
soul"),  Jer.  xxix.  13.  This  believing  self-surrender  is  further  designated  as  suppli- 
cation for  mercy  (D'Jljnp),  Jer.  xxxi.  9  ;  and  Zechariah  especially  makes  the  future 
conversion  of  the  people  to  result  from  God  pouring  out  upon  them,  xii.  10,  the 
spirit  of  grace  and  supplications  for  grace  (D'JIJriri]  |n  ni"i)  (8). 

(1)  2  Chron.  xx.  20  is  almost  identical :  ^WNH]  D?'!l^«  rijn'3  ^rpKH,  "  Believe 
in  Jehovah  your  God,  so  shall  ye  be  established." 


§  204.]         THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  EXPERIENCE  OF  SALVATION".  461 

(3)  Isa.  xxviii.  16  :  "  He  that  believeth  must  not  fear, "— E^'n;  denoting  anxious 
restlessness  ["shall  not  make  haste,"  viz.  to  flee,  Ges.  erl.  Miihlau  and  Volck]. 

(3)  Isa.  1.  10:  "  Who  is  among  you  that  feareth  the  Lord,  that  oboyeth  the 
voice  of  His  servant  ?  let  him,  when  he  walketh  in  darkness  and  liath  no  light, 
trust  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  and  stay  himself  (ji'K':)  upon  his  God."  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  said  with  respect  to  those  who  (rebelliously)  kindle  a  fire  and  light 
up  flames,  "they  are  given  up  a  prey  to  their  own  fire,  they  shall  lie  down  in 
sorrow." 

(4)  Ps.  cxxx.  3-5:  "  If  thou  shouldst  mark  iniquities,  .  .  .  -who  shall  stand? 
but  there  is  forgiveness  with  Thee.  ...  I  wait  for  the  Lord,  my  soul  doth  wait ; 
and  in  His  word  do  I  hope." 

(5)  Comp.  the  close  of  Isa.  xliii.  (§  202,  with  note  7). 

(6)  Isa.  xliv.  22  :  "I  have  blotted  out  as  a  cloud  thy  transgressions  :  .  .  .  return 
(n^ltJ*)  to  me,  for  I  have  redeemed  thee." 

(7)  lit  expresses  the  idea  that  the  movement  of  turning  attains  its  end. 

(8)  See  more  on  this  subject  in  the  description  of  the  Messianic  times,  §  223. 

§304. 

The  Old  Testament  Experience  of  Salvation. 

Our  next  inquiry  is,  How  far  did  this  appointed  way  of  salvation,  that  man  laying 
hold  by  faith  on  the  grace  of  God  should  find  forgiveness,  hold  good  during  the 
Old  Testament  dispeiisation?  Are  we  to  say  that  the  just  man  not  only  walked  in 
the  faith  of  a  future  fulfilment  of  the  promise  and  a  future  redemption,  but  also 
rejoiced  in  the  present  possession  of  salvation,  and  had  an  assurance  that  his  sins 
were  pardoned  ?  In  other  words,  was  there  already  in  Old  Testament  times  the 
experience  of  justification  and  adoption  in  the  New  Testament  sense  of  these  terms  ? 
This  difficult  question  was  especially  discussed  in  the  Cocceian  disputations. 
Cocceius  maintaining  that  the  old  covenant  furnished  only  a  irapeai^,  a  preter- 
missio,  a  dissimulatio  of  sin,  according  to  which,  although  satisfaction  had  not 
been  made  for  sin,  God  did  not  punish  it ;  but  not  an  a^ecii:  dfiapriac,  a  proper 
remissio  (t).  In  this  matter  the  question  is  whether,  besides  the  pardon  which, 
as  we  saw  in  the  doctrine  of  sacrifice  (§  137),  was  obtained  for  sins  of  infirmity  by 
confession  and  sacrifice  {e.g.  Lev.  v.  10  :  17  nSpJI,  comp.  also  Ps.  xix.  13),  there 
was  also  pardon  iov  p'resumptuous  sins,  which  could  not  be  atoned  for  by  sacrifice, 
and  therefore  a  justification  of  the  whole  man.  To  this  we  reply  as  follows  : — 
The  Old  Testament  certainly  teaches  by  word  and  fact — by  the  latter  in  the 
history  of  the  nation  as  well  as  in  the  experience  of  godly  individuals — that 
Divine  forgiveness  is  imparted  to  the  sinner  who  turns  in  penitence  and  faith  to 
God  ;  and  that  this  is  not  a  mere  ignoring  of  sin,  a  silence  (K'"?Dv?)  on  the  part  of 
God  with  respect  to  it,  such  as  He  might  for  a  season  observe  in  the  case  even  of 
the  ungodly  (as  in  Ps.  1.  21),  but,  as  Nathan  declares  to  the  repentant  David,  a 
causing  the  guilt  of  sin  to  pass  away  (-"lO'*^'?  '"""^i'.vl  "^P'),  a  removing  it  to  a  distance, 
or,  as  it  is  expressed  Job  xxxiii.  26,  He  restores  unto  man  his  righteousness  P^'l 
ir\j5"|V  t!^iJX7).  It  is  a  replacing  the  sinner  in  a  state  in  which,  as  conforming  to 
the  Divine  will,  he  is  accepted  by  God,  and  becomes  an  object  of  the  Divine  com- 
placency. God  desires  to  be  known  as  gracious  and  compassionate.  "  There  is 
forgiveness  (nn'SDH)  with  Thee,"  says  the  Psalmist,  cxxx.  4,  "that  Thou  mayest 
be  feared."  i.e.  that  Thou  mayest  be  in  Thy  forgiving  mercy  an  object  of  venera- 


462  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    PROPHETISM.  [§  204. 

tion.  Forgiveness  of  sins  is  an  act  which  God  performs  for  His  name's  sake,  as  it 
is  expressed  Ixxix.  9.  Hence  the  Old  Testament  speaks  not  only  of  the  restless- 
ness of  him  who  conceals  his  sins,  or  forgives  himself,  but  also  of  the  peace  of  him 
■who  is  absolved  from  sin  by  the  verdict  of  God.  To  this  subject  belongs  the  whole 
of  Ps.  xxxii.  and  Prov.  xxviii.  13,  with  which  must  be  connected  the  passages  in 
which  the  mercy  of  God  toward  contrite  and  humble  hearts  is  spoken  of,  Ps.  li., 
xxxiv.,  xix.,  etc.  Hence  we  find  not  only  ascriptions  of  praise  for  the  future 
atonement,  like  Mic.  vii.  18  sqq.,  but  also  thanksgivings  for  pardon  received, 
like  Ps.  ciii. 

This  experience  of  salvation,  however,  still  remains  hnt  relative,  and  decidedly  differs 
from  that  of  the  JVew  Testament.  In  theirs*  place,  it  does  indeed  afford  peace  of 
mind  concerning  individual  sins,  nay,  for  the  moment,  concerning  the  whole 
standing  of  the  sinful  subject  before  God  ;  but  not  resting  on  an  objective  and 
permanent  atonement  obtained  for  the  church,  it  does  not  establish  any  permanent 
state  of  reconciliation.  That  which  applies  to  the  church  as  a  whole  with  respect 
to  the  insufficiency  of  the  ministry  of  reconciliation  established  in  it, — viz.  that  it 
was  to  the  future  that  it  must  look  for  a  perfect  atonement  and  pardon,  comp. 
Zech.  iii.  8  sqq.  (2),  Ps.  cxxx.  7  sq.  :  "  O  Israel,  wait  for  the  Lord  ;  He  will  re- 
deem Israel  from  all  his  sins," — applies,  notwithstanding  the  inward  nature  of  the 
expiation,  Ps.  li.  19,  to  the  individual  also.  Not  such  atoning  grace  and  justifica- 
tion were  imparted  to  him  as  to  enable  him  to  say  with  the  apostle  :  "  Old  things 
are  passed  away  ;  behold,  all  things  are  become  new."  He  was  pacified  concern- 
ing the  past,  but  only  to  begin  again  seeking  to  be  henceforth  just  through  the 
works  of  the  law.  Feelings  of  love  and  gratitude  to  God,  who  had  thus  forgiven 
him,  were  aroused  within  him,  and  he  experienced  somewhat  of  the  assistance  of 
that  Divine  Spirit  who  creates  willingness  in  man.  But,  in  the  second  flace,  there 
was  not  in  him,  until  the  avOpuirog  nvev/xciTiKog  appeared  in  Christ,  a7i  indwelling  of 
this  Spirit,  in  virtue  of  which  a  subversion  of  the  old  foundations  of  his  life  was 
effected,  and  the  cwepfia  of  a  new  and  spiritual  personality,  of  a  spiritual  man, 
implanted  in  him.  This  is  well  expressed  by  Rougemont  {Christus  und  seine 
Zeugen),  when  he  says  that  under  the  Old  Testament  conversion  was  indeed 
reached  as  a  moral  change,  but  not  regeneration  as  a  new  creation.  It  is  true  that 
spiritual  energies  were  already  active  within  the  psychical  province  ;  but  even  the 
very  highest  operation  of  the  Divine  Spirit  in  the  Old  Testament,  viz.  the  gift  of 
prophecy  (comp.  §  161),  continued  to  be,  as  we  shall  soon  see,  an  extraordinary 
condition,  and  one  which  even  interfered  in  a  violent  manner  with  the  ordinary 
course  of  its  possessor's  life.  [What  Rougemont  may  be  supposed  to  mean  is, 
that  since  the  resurrection  and  ascension  of  Christ,  there  is  a  f  illness  of  spiritual 
power  unknown  to  Old  Testament  saints.  But  the  essential  elements  of  the  new 
birth,  repentance,  faith,  justification,  and  peace  with  God  must  always  in  their 
very  nature  be  the  same.  How  difficult  it  is  to  draw  the  line  exactly  on  this 
question  may  be  seen  in  the  labored  attempts  of  Witsius  in  the  third  volume  of 
his  Economy  of  the  Covenants,  Eng.  tr.  1763,  pp.  1072-1147,  in  which  he  en- 
deavors to  refute  the  views  of  Cocceius.  The  subject  is  worthy  of  a  special 
study  and  a  separate  treatise. — D.] 

And  it  was  just  because,  in  the  third  place,  the  Divine  Spirit  did  not  make  in 
the  Old  Testament  saints  a  new  foundation  of  life,— di4  not  as  yet  worl?  outward 


§  204.]  THE    OLD   TESTAMENT    EXPERIENCE    OF   SALVATION.  4G3 

from  within,  as  the  transforming  principle  of  the  whole  man, — that  the  conquest 
of  death,  and  everlasting  life  were  not  effected.  The  individual  might  indeed  be 
for  the  moment  raised  above  death  and  the  grave,  comp.  Ps.  Ixxiii.  26,  etc.  (and 
this  subject  will  be  discussed  Part  III.),  but  tlien  death  was  but  concealed  under 
a  veil.  The  deliverance  from  deatli  connected  with  the  pardon  of  sin  in  the  Old 
Testament  was  only  a  transitory  deliverance,  a  jiostponement  of  temporal  death. 
It  was  in  this  sense  that  Nathan  said  unto  David,  2  Sam.  xii.  13,  "  Thou  shalt 
not  die  ;"  in  this  that  Job,  the  sick  man,  who  had  found  forgiveness  of  sins, 
said,  xxxiii.  28,  "lie  has  redeemed  my  soul  from  going  into  the  pit,  and  my 
life  shall  seethe  light  ;"  and  in  this  also  that  the  Psalmist  exclaimed,  ciii.  2sqq., 
"  Praise  the  Lord,  O  my  soul,  .  .  .  who  forgiveth  all  thine  iniquities  ;  who  heal- 
eth  all  thy  diseases;  who  redeemeth  thy  lifefrovi  the  grave;  wlio  crowneth  thee 
with  loving-kindness  and  tender  mercies."  And  when  Habakkuk  enounces  the 
proposition,  "The  just  shall  live"'  ir\J10!!<3  (comp.  §  203),  it  refers  to  deliverance 
and  preservation  under  impending  iuda^ments.  to  what  was,  e.g.,  expressed  in 
the  words  of  Jeremiah  to  Baruch,  Jer.  xlv.  5  :  "  Thy  life  will  I  give  thee  for  a 
prey"  (comp.  xxi.  9).  It  is  a  temporary  deliverance  from  death  but  the  sentence 
of  death  is  not  cancelled.  Hence  how  differently  from  Job  xxx.  28  sound  tlie 
thanksgivings  of  the  justified  in  Rom.  viii.,  when  the  Spirit  of  the  risen  Re- 
deemer is  energizing  in  the  redeemed  !  Hence,  too,  the  writer  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  declares,  xi.  40,  that  before  the  redemption  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  fathers  of  the  old  covenant  were  not  partakers  of  the  TEXdumg. 

From  what  has  been  advanced,  it  may  be  seen  how  much  was  wanting  under 
the  Old  Testament  dispensation  to  the  full  restoration  of  a  filial  relation  toward 
God.  The  idea  of  Divine  sonship  as  conferred  upon  the  nation  in  general  (§  82. 
1),  and  then  upon  the  theocratic  king  (§  165,  with  note  7),  nay,  as  affirmed  in  a 
special  sense  of  the  godly  (Ps.  Ixxiii.  15,  '"['^3  "in^  the  race  of  thy  sons),  was  still 
but  an  idea,  to  be  fully  realized  only  in  the  future.  The  highest  communion  be- 
tween God  and  man,  established  by  prophecy,  does  not  attain  to  the  eminence 
of  that  filial  state  inaugurated  by  the  New  Testament ;  for  which  reason  Christ 
declares  the  greatest  of  the  prophets  to  be  less  than  the  least  in  His  kingdom, 
Matt.  xi.  11. 

(1)  Information  concerning  this  controversy  will  be  found  in  Buddeus,  in  his 
Institutio  theol.  dogmat.  Cocceius  was  opposed  not  only  l)y  Alting  and  Ley- 
decker,  but  also  by  Witsius,  De  ivconomia  fosderum  Dei,  ed.  4,  p.  786  sqq.  (comp. 
§  11).  Among  moderns,  comp.  especially  Fr.  <^e  Rougemont's  work,  Le  Christ  et 
ses  temoins,  which  contains  a  series  of  pertinent  remarks  on  tliis  subject. 

(3)  According  to  Zech.  iii.  8  sq.,  the  priesthood  pointed  only  in  a  type  (^1310) 
to  the  future  Redeemer  (comp.  §  200). 


464  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    PROPHETISM.  [§  205, 


THIRD  DIYISIOK 

OF  PROPHECY  (1). 

FIRST   SUBDIVISION. 
THE     PROPHETIC    CONSCIOUSNESS. 

§   205. 
Negative  Propositions. 

Although  the  natural  gifts  and  personal  qualifications  of  one  called  to  the  pro- 
phetic office  formed  the  individual  2Jresup'position  of  his  prophetic  vocation,  and 
though  the  ministrations  of  a  prophet  were  objectively  conditioned  by  the  state 
of  affairs,  and  the  testimony  of  each  prophet  was  connected  with  all  the  revealed 
testimony  of  his  predecessors,  still  that  ir)liich  made  the  prophet  a  prophet  loas  not 
his  natural  (lifts  nor  his  own  intention.,  and  that  which  he  pi'oclaimed  as  the  jtrojjhetic 
word  was  not  the  mere  result  of  instruction  received^  nor  the  product  of  hisowji  re^£^ 
tion. 

The  older  theology  certainly  erred  in  too  widely  severing  prophecy  from  its 
connection  both  with  the  individuality  (the  moral  and  intellectual  idiosyncrasy) 
of  the  prophet,  and  with  the  objective  historical  circumstances  in  which  it  liad  its 
roots,  thus  conceiving  of  the  individual  prophet  as  inserted  in  the  age  like  a  deus 
ex  machina.  It  is  quite  certain,  however,  that  neither  personal  inclination,  nor 
natural  endowment,  nor  human  training  could  make  a  prophet,  and  equally  so, 
that  the  knowledge  obtained  by  instruction  or  study  was  incapable  of  producing 
a  prophecy.  However  true  it  may  be  that  a  certain  learned  education  was 
given  in  the  so-called  schools  of  the  prophets  (§§  162  and  174),  and  while  it  is 
certain  that  the  prophets  were  themselves  assi;luous  students  of  the  law,  the 
history;  of  Israel,  and  the  older  prophecies,  still  tlie  prophet  differs  essentially 
from  the  later  scribes  and  Hahhins.  It  is  not  his  to  say,  "It  is  written,"  or, 
"  Such  and  such  a  master  teaches,"  but,  "Thus  saith  Jehovah,"  or,  "  The  word  of 
Jehovah  came  to  mc,  saying,"  etc.  (2).  The  true  prophets  were  not  the  O'l^Q? 
of  a  human  teacher,  but  of  Jehovah  (comp.  Isa.  I.  4),  Hence  it  is  that  Amos 
will  not  allow  himself  (vii.  14)  to  be  numbered  among  the  titular  prophets  of  the 
guild  or  school.  Tlie  matter  of  prophecy  is  also  as  distinct  from  autrht  that  coiild 
be  devised  or  discovered  by  reflection,  as  it  is  from  the  results  of  human  learning. 
So  little,  indeed,  is  what  the  prophet  predicts  derived  from  his  own  heart  or  intel- 
lect, that  the  characteristic  of  the  false  prophets  is  declared  to  be  that  they  speak 
that  wliich  they  have  themselves  devised.  These  latter  are  designated,  Ezek.  xiii. 
2  sq.,  as  prophets  out  of  their  own  hearts,  who  follow  their  own  spirit,  and  have 
seen  nothing  ;  they  speak,  according  to  Jer.  xxiii.  16,  a  vision  of  their  own  heart, 
and  not  out  of  the  mouth  of  Jehovah  ;  they  steal,  ver.  30  sq.,  the  word  of  God  from 
the  true  prophet ;  they  use  their  tongues  and  predict  like  them.  (Of  course,  in 
the  case  of  the  true  prophets,  reflection  plays  its  part,  but  it  is  exercised  upon  mat- 


§  20G.]       PROPHETIC    COKSCIOUSNESS  :    POSITIVE    PROPOSITIONS.  4G5 

ter  objectively  received.)  The  prophets  strictly  distinguished  between  tlie  word 
of  Jehovah  and  tlieir  own  views  and  desires.  Very  instructive  in  tliis  respect  is 
the  Booii  of  Ilabakkuli.  In  ch.  i.  he  complains,  first,  of  the  corruption  of  the 
times,  then  of  the  tyranny  of  the  secular  power  which  God  had  made  the  instru- 
ment of  His  judgments.  To  these  complaints  he  receives,  ch.  ii.,  the  Divine  an- 
swer which  furnishes  the  solution  of  the  enigma,  whereupon  the  subjective  emo- 
tion of  the  prophet  is  poured  forth  in  a  song  of  praise  in  ch.  iii.  (3). 

(1)  The  prophetic  office  and  its  position  in  tlie  theocracy  were  described  in  the 
historical  section  (§  161  sq.),  in  wiiich  a  review  of  the  historical  development  of 
the  prophethood  was  also  given.  Our  task  now  is  to  treat  more  particularly  of 
prophecy  as  the  medium  of  Divine  revelation.  Since,  however,  the  nature  of  this 
revelation  can  only  be  understood  by  a  just  appreciation  of  the  mental  condition  of 
the  prophet  who  is  its  organ,  we  must  now  discuss  more  fully  this  latter  point, — in 
other  words,  the  question  how  the  jjrophetic  consciousness  is  to  le  defined  and  ex- 
plained,— a  question  which  was  a  source  of  controversy  even  in  the  earliest  ages 
of  the  church.  The  course  we  propose  to  take  in  this  matter  is,  first,  to  lay  down 
those  general  propositions  concerning  which  there  can  be,  so  far  as  the  authority 
of  plain  scriptural  statements  is  deferred  to,  no  disagreement ;  then  to  state  the 
chief  views  which  have  been  held  on  disputed  points,  and,  by  examining  these 
several  views,  to  smooth  the  way  to  more  particular  positive  definitions.  Hence 
this  division  is  divided  into  two  subdivisions,  the  first  of  which  treats  of  the  Pro- 
phetic Consciousness,  the  second  of  Prophecy.  Comp.  esjiecially,  witli  respect  to 
the  historical  element,  my  article  "'  Weissagung"  in  Herzog's  Eeal-EncyMoji.  xvii. 
p.  626  sqq.  Bruno  Bauer  has  discussed  this  point  more  thoroughly  than  others. 
Among  the  numerous  monographs,  that  of  Tholuck  {Die  ProjAieten  luid  Hire  Weis- 
sarjungen.,  1860,  ed.  ii.  1861)  must  be  specially  mentioned.  [Also  Konig,  Der 
Offenharungsiegi-'iff'  des  A.  T.  2  Bde,  1882  ;  Kiiper,  Das  Pvoflietcntlinm  des  Alien 
Bundcs,  1870;  Kuenen,  The  Prophets  and  Prophecy  in  Israel,  1875,  transl.  Lond. 
1877  ;  Rrehm  on  Messianic  Prophecy,  1875  ;  Orelli,  Die  messianische  Weissagitng  von 
der  Vollendung  des  Oottesreichs,  2  Bde.  1882-83  ;  also,  among  English  authors, 
Davison,  Discourses  on  Prophecy  (Warburtonian  Lecture),  1839;  Fairbairn,  Propih- 
ecy  viewed  in  respect  to  its  distinctive  natu7-e,  its  spjecial  function,  and  proper  inter- 
prretation,  2d  ed.  1865  ;  W.  Robertson  Smith,  The  Prophets  of  Israel,  1882,  against 
some  of  whose  positions  see  Green,  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  1883,  in  which  also  the 
work  of  Kuenen  is  examined  ;  comp.  also  Fisher,  The  Orounds  of  Theistic  and 
Christian  Belief,  1883,  in  which,  pp.  314-335,  he  discusses  the  argument  for 
Christianity  from  Prophecy.^ — D.J 

(2)  It  is  not  our  intention  to  set  up  any  theory  of  prophecy  apart  from  Old 
Testament  statements,  but  to  listen  to  what  the  prophets  themselves  tell  us. 

(3)  [Konig  (ii.  §  21-23)  has  discussed  at  some  length  and  in  an  instructive  man- 
ner the  declaration  of  the  prophets  that  their  prophecy  did  not  ])roceed  from 
their  own  heart.  How  the  neglect  of  this  thought  avenges  itself  may  be  seen  in 
the  treatment  of  prophetic  revelation  by  Ewald,  in  whicli  revelation  apjiears  pre- 
dominantly as  an  achievement  of  the  prophets  themselves.  ] 

§206. 

Positive  Propositions. 

The  prophet,  as  such.  Mows  himself  to  he  the  or^an  of  Divine  revelation,  in  virtue 
hoth  of  a  Divine  vocation,  capable  of  leing  hnoicn  ly  him  as  snch,  and  which  came  to 
him  with  irresistiUe  poicer  (1),  and  also  of  his  endowment  with  the  enlightening,  sancti- 
fying, and  strengthening  Spirit  of  God.  Accordingly,  a  pi-ophet  hiows  the  ohjective 
reality,  as  the  ivord  of  Ood,  of  that  tcord  which  he  proclaims. 


466  THE  THEOLOGY   OF   PROPHETISM,  [§  2U6. 

1.  The  prophets  know  nothing  of  a  moment  at  which  the  resolution  to  devote 
themselves  to  the  prophetic  vocation  came  to  maturity,  though  they  do  know  of 
one  when  God  called  them  and  appointed  them  to  be  prophets,  even  against  their 
own  desire,  and  by  the  subjugation  of  their  native  timidity.  The  overwhelming 
constraint  of  the  Divine  call  is  described  by  Amos  in  the  discourse  (iii.  8)  in  which 
he  vindicates  his  prophetic  work  (2).  He  says  that  he  felt  like  a  shepherd  whom 
the  roaring  of  a  lion  fills  with  fear,  when  the  Lord  said  unto  him  (vii.  15),  as  he 
was  following  the  flock,  "  Go  and  prophesy  unto  my  people  Israel,"  Isaiah,  ch, 
vi.,  and  Ezehiel,  ch.  i.  sq.,  refer  their  call  to  visions,  in  which  the  glory  of  the 
Lord  was  manifested  to  them.  But  the  Book  of  Jeremiah  furnishes  the  most 
abundant  proofs  of  the  certainty  the  prophets  felt  concerning  their  Divine  voca- 
tion. Jeremiah  well  knew  that  the  events  of  his  life,  from  the  first  moment  of 
his  existence,  had  been  ordered  with  reference  to  his  prophetic  vocation  (comp. 
i.  4).  This  had  not,  however,  the  effect  of  i^roducing  in  him  a  resolution  to  em- 
brace this  vocation  ;  for  even  when  the  Divine  call  actually  came,  he  resisted  it 
(ver.  6)  on  the  plea  of  his  youth.  He  testifies,  xx.  7  sqq.,  that  the  Lord  persuad- 
ed and  prevailed  ;  he  asserts  that,  amidst  the  sorrows  which  his  prophetic  office 
brought  upon  him,  he  would  willingly  have  restrained  the  Divine  impulse,  but 
was  unable  to  do  so  ;  comp.  xvii.  16  (3).  It  was  in  virtue  of  the  assurance  that 
the  call  he  had  received  was  from  God,  that  he  condemned  the  pretensions  of 
false  prophets  (ch.  xxiii.,  comp.  ch.  xxviii.  and  xxix.  24-33)  (4).  And  as  it  was 
not  by  his  own  choice  that  any  man  was  called  to  be  a  prophet,  so  also  it  is  gen- 
erally true  with  regard  to  prophetic  revelations,  that  they  could  not  be  forced 
either  by  the  prophets  themselves  or  by  any  others.  For  there  were  seasons  dur- 
ing which  God's  intercourse  with  His  people  by  means  of  prophetic  revelations 
was  interrupted,  such  interruption  being  among  the  special  tokens  of  approaching 
judgment.  Thus  the  word  of  the  Lord  is  sought  in  vain,  Amos  viii.  12  ;  visions 
are  in  vain  desired  of  the  prophets,  Ezek.  vii.  26,  because  they  no  longer  receive 
them  from  the  Lord,  Lam.  ii.  9,  comp.  Ps.  Ixxiv.  9. 

2.  That  overpowering  Divine  influence  which  the  prophets  experienced,  is 
sometimes  quite  indefinitely  designated  as  the  hand  of  Oocl  coming  upon  them, 
being  strong  upon  them,  falling  ujion  them  (comp.  such  passages  as  Isa.  viii.  11, 
Jer.  XV.  17,  Ezek.  i.  3,  iii.  14,  22,  viii.  1,  etc.).  The  rnedium  of  the  revelation 
is,  however,  more  particularly  said  to  be  the  Spirit  of  God,  through  whom  it  is, 
Zech.  vii.  12,  that  the  Lord  sends  His  word  by  means  of  the  prophets  (5).  This 
Spirit  proves  itself  to  be  Divine,  first,  by  disclosing  to  the  prophets  s^icA  knowledge 
as  could  come  from  God  alone.  For  while  it  is  said  to  the  false  prophets,  Jer.  xxiii. 
18,  "  Who  has  stood  in  the  council  of  the  Lord,  and  hath  perceived  and  heard  His 
word  ?"  the  saying  of  Amos,  iii.  7,  that  the  Lord  does  nothing,  but  He  revealeth 
(uucovereth)  His  secret  to  His  servants  the  prophets,  applies  to  the  true  prophets. 
Hence  he  who  prophesies  is  called  the  man  of  uncovered  eyes.  Num.  xxiv.  4,  and 
the  word  of  the  Lord  a  thing  revealed,  Dan.  x.  1.  To  lay  all  possible  stress  upon 
the  objectivity  of  this  word,  its  communication  is  designated  as  a  giving  (Ezek. 
ii.  8,  iii.  3),  a  putting  into  the  mouth  of  the  prophet  (Deut.  xviii.  18,  Jer.  i.  9), 
etc.  But  even  this  putting  of  God's  word  into  the  mouth  of  any  man  docs  not, 
if  it  stands  alone,  constitute  a  genuine  prophet.  Even  a  Balaam,  when  over- 
powered by  Jehovah,  was  constrained  to  prophesy,  and  a  Caiaphas  to  proclaim 


§  206.]      PROPHETIC   CONSCIOUSNESS  :    POSITIVE   PROPOSITIONS.  467 

truth  against  his  own  will  (John  xi.  51).  But  still  more,  in  the  second  place, 
does  the  spirit  show  itself  to  be  of  God  to  the  true  prophet  upon  whom  it  comes, 
and  whom  it  fits  for  his  office,  by  its  sanctifying  and  strengthening  agency.  While 
God  says  to  the  ungodly,  Ps.  1.  16  sq.,  "  What  hast  thou  to  do  to  declare  my 
statutes,  or  that  thou  shouldest  take  my  covenant  in  thy  mouth,  seeing  thou  hat- 
est  instruction  and  castest  my  words  behind  thee  ?"  while  the  false  prophets 
show  themselves  to  be  deceivers  by  flattering  the  sinful  lusts  of  the  people  (Mic. 
ii.  11,  iii.  5  sqq.),  the  true  prophet  can  testify  of  himself,  Mic.  iii.  8,  "I  am  full 
of  power  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord,  and  of  judgment,  and  of  might,  to  declare 
unto  Jacob  his  transgression,  and  to  Israel  his  sin."  On  the  manner  in  which  the 
prophetic  spirit  makes  him  upon  whom  it  comes  another  man,  compare  the  re- 
marks, §  161,  on  1  Sam.  x.  6,  9. 

3.  It  is  in  virtue  of  such  spiritual  experience  that  the  prophet  knows  that  the 
word  put  into  his  mouth  will  also  x>i'0V6  itself  to  bear  within  it  the  jyoicer  of  the 
living  Ood.  It  is  nutritious  like  w^heat,  while  the  word  of  the  false  prophets  is 
like  chaff  ;  it  works  with  irresistible  force  like  fire,  and  like  a  hammer  that 
breaks  the  rocks  in  pieces,  Jer.  xxiii.  28  ;  it  is  a  word  which  proves  its  reality 
under  all  circumstances  ;  it  shall  not  return  to  the  Lord  void,  but  shall  accomplish 
that  which  He  pleases,  and  prosper  in  the  thing  whereto  He  sends  it,  Isa.  Iv.  11. 
Hence  the  prophet,  as  the  announcer  of  this  word,  is  also  the  performer  of  Divine 
acts  ;  he  is,  as  was  said  to  Jeremiah,  i.  10,  set  over  nations  and  kingdoms,  to  root 
out,  and  to  pull  down,  and  to  destroy,  and  to  throw  down,  to  build,  and  to 
plant  (6). 

(1)  [Konig  (i.  p.  100)  says  of  this  statement,  that  the  author  means  by  this  call 
only  an  impulse  of  the  human  spirit  communicated  by  the  Divine  Spirit.  But 
this  is  an  interpretation  which  is  not  sustained  by  what  follows,  to  which  Konig 
appeals.  When,  for  instance,  it  is  said  that  the  calling  was  often  made  through  a 
vision,  something  more  than  such  an  impulse  is  recognized.] 

(2)  Amos  iii.  8:  "The  lion  hath  roared,  who  will  not  fear?  The  Lord  God 
hath  spoken,  who  can  but  prophecy?" 

(3)  Jer.  xvii.  16:  "I  did  not  withhold  myself  from  following  Thee  as  a 
shepherd.  I  have  not  desired  the  w-oeful  day  (which  I  was  obliged  to  predict)  ; 
Thou  knowest  it :  that  which  came  out  of  my  lips  w^as  before  Thy  face." 

(4)  [If,  on  the  contrary,  the  false  prophets  are  regarded  "us  essentially  repre- 
sentatives of  divergent  prophetic  tendencies"  (Stade,  in  his  Zeitschrift,  1881,  p.  8), 
then  what  the  [true]  prophet  declares  in  virtue  of  authority  from  God  in  holy 
zeal  against  them,  must  appear  to  be  inspired  by  carnal  passion  and  partisan 
zeal.] 

(5)  [That  revelation  (revealed  truth,  in  distinction  from  inspiration)  is  given 
by  means  of  the  Spirit  of  God  is  denied  by  Konig,  i.  p.  104  sqq.,  who  main- 
tains that  the  endowment  of  the  prophets  with  the  Spirit — which  he  conceives 
of  as  permanent,  but  sometimes,  for  the  time  being,  elevated  to  an  uncommon 
degree"  (p.  121),  effected  "  a  general  excitement,  quickening  and  strengthening  of 
all  the  faculties,"  "  illumination  of  the  world  of  ideas,  strengthening  of  memory, 
sharpening  of  the  judgment,  warming  of  the  emotions,  energizing  of  the  will" 
(p.  112)— and  also  imparted  in  an  ethical  aspect  "  a  general  disposition  to  aim  at 
what  is  pleasing  to  God  "  (p.  113).  The  spiritual  endowment  thereby  produced, 
"so  that  a  stream  of  the  real  Divine  Spirit  wiiich  .  .  .  pervades  the  universe 
....  was  sent  down  upon  these  men,  and  exerted  upon  them  a  quickening 
influence  of  a  peculiar  nature  (p.  125),  07ily  qualified  them  to  receive  revelation''''  (p. 
111).      In  respect  to  Zech.  vii.  12,  Konig  does  not  regard  the  passage  as  co- 


468  THE  THEOLOGY   OP   rROPHETISM.  [§  307. 

ordinate  with  the  older  declarations  concerning  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God 
in  the  accomplishment  of  revelation,  but  understands  it  to  say  that  along  with 
Jehovah  as  the  primary  point  of  departure  of  the  revealed  word,  the  Spirit  here 
appears  as  a  second  Divine  being,  through  whom  the  revelation  of  Jehovah  is  made 
(p.  108  f.).  The  conclusions  of  Konig  are  worthy  of  consideration,  and  may  prove 
a  stimulus  to  more  thorough  investigation  and  a  more  satisfactory  answer  to  the 
question,  but  they  require  proof.  Can  we  e.g.  regard  the  pouring  out  of  the 
Spirit  in  Joel  iii.  1  (A.  V.  ii.  28)  only  as  a  preparation  for  receiving  revelation  (p. 
108),  and  in  Isa.  viii.  11,  besides  the  "unusual  influence  of  the  Spirit"  to  which 
Konig  holds  (p.  131),  "Jehovah's  speaking  with  a  strong  hand"  to  refer,  are  we 
to  assume  a  farther  Divine  speaking  not  communicated  through  the  Spirit  ?] 

§307. 

Psychological  Definition  of  the  Prophetic  State  in  Ancient  Times 

From  what  has  been  advanced,  the  mental  condition  of  the  prophet  may  be 
generally  defined  as  one  in  which  he  knows  himself  to  be  under  a  Divine  influence 
entirely  distinct  from  his  own  subjectivity,  and  for  that  very  reason  finds  himself 
to  a  certain  extent  in  a  state  of  passivity.  This  is  also  expressed  by  the  pas- 
sive form  of  his  title,  ^'3J,  and  the  corresponding  verbal  designations  ^23  and 
XSjnn,  [This  view  cannot  now  be  regarded  as  tenable,  comp.  §  161,  note  3. — D.] 
But  hoio  then  is  the  prophetic  state  to  te  psychologically  and  more  precisely  defined  ? 
On  this  subject  various  opinions  were  held  in  ancient  times.  The  LXX  first 
deserve  notice,  inasmuch  as  they  translate  i<3J,  ^'''?\,  etc.,  by  TvpocpT/TTjg,  7rpo0??reiw  ; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  they  render  DDp^,  Dpp,  D?p.,  which  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament are  only  used  of  false  prophets  and  heathen  soothsaying,  by  /navrevo/iac, 
/mvTtc,  /xavTeia.  It  is  highly  probable  that  the  Alexandrian  translators  were 
influenced  in  their  choice  of  these  expressions  by  the  distinction  which  existed 
between  them  in  their  narrower  use.  According  to  this,  the  fxavrig  was  the  ecstatic 
utterer  of  an  oracle,  the  irpofr^TT/c  the  soier-minded  interpreter  of  the  oracle  of  the 
former,  as  Plato  states  in  the  chief  passage  on  this  subject  in  the  Timaeus  (ed. 
Steph.  p.  71  sq.)  (1).  Thus  at  Delphi,  the  interpreter  of  the  Pythia,  who  com- 
bined the  sounds  she  gave  vent  to  into  a  sentence,  was  called  7rpo0//r?/f  (Herodot. 
viii.  36  ;  Plutarch,  de  defectu  orac.  cap.  51).  When,  then,  the  Old  Testament 
Nabhi  is  designated  in  the  LXX  by  the  name  rrpofj/Trjc,  he  may  be  said  to  be 
chiefly  characterized  not  as  a  2^'>'6dicter  (a  meaning  belonging  indeed  also  to 
TTpo^^yrvf),  but  as  one  who  declares  what  the  Divine  Spirit  has  imparted  to  him,  to 
which  function  it  is  essential  that  it  should  be  consciously  and  intelligently  per- 
formed.— FhUo^s  view  of  prophecy  is  at  variance  with  this,  and  rather  harmonizes, 
in  the  manner  in  which  it  describes  the  prophetic  state,  with  what  Plato  (comp. 
also  Phcedrus,  p.  265  ;  Ion,  p.  534,  ed.  Steph.)  teaches  concerning  the  mantic 
enthusiasm.  It  remodels,  however,  according  to  Old  Testament  supernaturalism, 
the  Platonic  theory,  which  regards  the  divining  power  of  the  soul  as  immanent 
in  virtue  of  its  Divine  origin.  The  prophet  is,  according  to  Philo,  the  interpreter 
{epfiT/veiig)  of  God,  who  makes  him  inwardly  perceive  what  he  is  to  speak  {de  praem. 
et.  poen.  Mang.  ii.  p.  417).  This  Divine  inspiration  is  received  by  the  prophet 
in  a  state  of  ekotocle,  which  is  said  indeed  to  be  distinctly  different  from  the 
frenzy  of  madness,  but  in  which  self-c,onsciousness  is  nevertheless  entirehL-in 


§  207.]      DEFINITION    OF    PROPIIKTIC    STATE    IN    ANCIENT   TIMES.  469 

abeyance  (comi).  especially  in  the  work,  Quis  rerum  divin.  halves  sit,  the  passage  i. 
p.  511)  :  the  voii^  has  departed  to  give  place  to  the  Divine  Spirit  (for  if  the  Divine 
light  is  to  rise,  the  human  light  must  set).  It  is  merely  in  appearance,  says  Philo, 
that  the  prophet  himself  speaks  :  he  is  in  reality  passive  ;  another  is  making  use 
of  his  organs  of  speech  to  announce  His  will.  IIow  far  Philo  severed  the  pro- 
phetic revelation  from  the  life  of  the  prophet,  and  regarded  it  as  introduced 
therein  without  any  predisposing  cause,  is  shown  particularly  by  the  close  of  the 
first  book  de  monarchia  (2).  But,  on  the  other  hand,  Philo  recognizes  no  specific 
difference  between  i)rophecy  and  the  Divine  illumination  imparted  to  every  sage. 
In  both,  the  same  iTV£v[ia  is  working.  The  prophetic  state  is  at  last  nothing  more 
in  his  view  than  that  intuitive  sinking  of  the  ego  into  the  Divine  which,  and  there- 
fore prophecy,  is  possible  iravTl  av6pu-u  aarEiu  (3). 

Philo's  view  of  the  ecstatic  character  of  the  prophetic  state  passed  over  to  the 
earliest  church  fathers.  The  prophet,  says  Atlxenagoras  (YlpEa(3eia,  cap.  viii.),  spake 
kut'  tKGTaaLv  Tuv  kv  avTolg  Tioyia/iuv,  during  which  the  Divine  Spirit  that  moved  them 
used  them,  as  a  flute-player  does  his  instrument.  In  like  manner  Justin  Martyr 
declares  (Cohort,  ad  Grmcos,  cap.  8),  that  "  men  could  not  by  nature  nor  by  their 
own  reflection  know  things  so  great  and  glorious,  but  only  in  virtue  of  the  gift 
which  then  descended  from  on  high  upon  these  holy  ones  ;  they  needed  no  arts 
of  rhetoric,  ....  but  only  to  yield  themselves  up  in  sincerity  to  the  Divine 
Spirit,  that  He,  as  a  Divine  plectrum,  descending  from  heaven,  and  using  these 
righteous  men  like  a  cither  or  lute,  might  reveal  to  us  the  knowledge  of  Divine  and 
heavenly  things. ' '  It  may  indeed  be  disputed  whether  such  rhetorical  expressions 
are  to  be  understood  of  ecstasy  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  word, — the  amentia, 
as  Tertullian  {Adv.  Marc.  iv.  22),  from  his  IMontanist  point  of  view,  conceives  of 
it.  This  subject  was  not  discussed  more  thoroughly  until  it  became,  as  Ter- 
tullian (Jd.)  intimates,  a  matter  Qf  dispute  between  the  Montauists  and  the  Catholic 
church  fathers.  The  latter,  disgusted  with  ecstasy  as  presented  to  them  by  the 
Montanist  prophets,  declared  all  conmilsions  which  repressed  the  rational  consciousness 
unworthy  of  true  prophecy,  and  only  fit  for  the  manticism  produced  by  demoni- 
acal powers  (4).  Origen,  in  particular,  most  emphatically  maintains  the  tenet 
that,  during  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  experienced  by  the  prophets,  the 
will  and  judgment  remain  in  their  normal  activity^  and  that  the  removal  of  every  ob- 
scuration of  the  understanding  is  a  token  that  a  better  spirit  is  animating  the 
soul  {De  princip.  iii.  3,  4,  comp.  with  Horn.  vi.  onEzekiel).  With  this  agree  the 
declarations  of  Epiphanius  against  the  Montanists  {Hcer.  xlviii.  2  and  4  sqq.),  and 
of  Chrysostom,  29th  Homily  on  the  Fir^  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  (5).  Jerome, 
too,  frequently  speaks  on  this  subject ;  see  Prol.  in  expos.  Jes.  ed.  Vallarsius,  iv. 
sec.  3  ;  prcpf.  comm,.  in  Hob.  vi.  p.  590,  etc.  ;  j-j^^p/".  comm.  in  Nah.  vi.  p.  536.  Still 
the  polemics  of  the  Fathers,  as  Tholuck  justly  remarks  {Die  Propheten  imd  ihre 
Weissagungen,  p.  65),  do  not  deny  the  existence  of  every  kind  of  ecstasy  in  the  case 
of  the  organs  of  revelation.  They  could  not  thus  set  themselves  in  opposition  to 
the  clear  statements  of  Holy  Scripture.  They  only  reject,  as  a  reference  to  the 
words  of  Miltiades  in  Eusebius,  Eist.  eccl. ,  Chap.  17,  shows,  the  TiapiKa-raa  i  c ,  the 
state  in  which  the  man  falls  into  the  aKovaiog  f/avla,  which  they  find  to  be,  as 
Jerome  especially  insists,  opposed  to  the  saying  of  Paul,  in  1  Cor.  xiv.  32,  that 
the  spirits  of  the  prophets  are  subject  to  the  prophets,  who  thus  have  prediction 


470  THE   THEOLOGY    OF   PEOPHETISM.  [§  207. 

ia  their  power  ;  but  admit  that  a  thlo^  /ueTEwp/.a/wc  takes  place  with  the  prophets 
(Origenes,  in  Johann.  ii.  1).  Or,  to  use  tlie  expressions  of  Ajig^ustine,  they 
reject  the  ecstasy  as  alienatio  a  inente^  but  acknowledge  it  as  nlienatio  mentis  a 
sensibus  coriwris  (6).  And  this  is  in  effect  to  regard  the  prophetic_statejis  ex- 
traj^)rdinary  and  temporary.  Frail  human  nature  could  not,  as  Jerome  in  his  com- 
mentary on  Ezekiel,  lib.  xi.  on  ch.  xxxv.  {vide  p.  415),  remarks,  endure  an  un- 
interrujited  state  of  revelation.  In  this  respect  we  discern  an  essential  difference 
between  the  prophets  and  Christ,  in  whom  the  Spirit  abode  permanently  (7). 

(1)  Plato  says,  id.  :  fiavriKyv  a<ppoauv7j  dsbg  avOpuirhnj  (USukeV  oiichlc  jap  ivvovQ 
EibdnTerai  /lavTiKTjg  kvdtov  nal  d?u/dovg,  etc.  ;  wherefore  the  Trpofi/Tuv  yhog  is  given  to 
the  /idvric  to  explain  and  exhibit  what  the  iicivtlq  has  spoken  in  enigmas. 

(2)  Moses,  it  is  there  said  (Mang.  ii.  p.  222),  excluded  all  kinds  of  heathen 
manticism  ;  but  in  order  that  the  innate  desire  of  all  men  for  the  knowledge  of 
the  future  might  be  satisfied,  hnKpavng  h^aitivaiug  irpoipTfTr/g  deo<i)6p^Tog  dea-Triel  nal  irpo- 
(pr/TEixyei,  Myuv  /lev  olnelov  ovdtv.  ovSe  yap,  el  Myei,  dyvarai  naraTiajielv  b  ye  narexoiievoq 
bvTUQ  Kal  evOovaiuv'  baa  6e  EvrjXElTai,  6ie2.EV(j£Tai  KaBdwEp  V7ro(3d?iXovTog  eteoov.  kpfiTjVEig  ydp 
e'lglv  oi  Tvpo<pTiTaL  Oeov  KaraxpufJ-EVov  toIq  ekeIvuv  bpydvoig  rrpbg  dij'Xuoiv  uv  av  kdE2,Tja'>j. 

(3)  Comp.  Qwis.  rer.  div.  hcer.  s, ,  p.  510  :  Kal  TvavTi  6£  dvdpuTTG)  aaTEtu  b  Ispbg  Abyog 
7rpo(pT)r£iav  fiaprvpEc  .  .  .  ^avlo)  6e  ov  ds/xig  ip/iTjvEi  yEvkaOai.  Oeov,  uare  Kvpiug  [loxBripbg 
ohSElg  kvOovaia,  /Libi>(i>  ds  GO(pch  ravr'  Ecpap/udrTsi,  errEt  Kal  fibvog  bpyavov  Oeov  hariv  ijxovv, 
KpovbfiEvov  Kal  TTXyrTo/iEvov  dopdrug  vn'  avrov.  JldvTag  yovv  bnoaovg  dvEypaips  SiKaiovg, 
KaTExo/iEvovg  Kal  TvpoipriTEvovTag  sla^yays.  Comp.  also,  de  ci'eat.  jn'in^'ip'u.'m,  ii.  p.  368. 
The  prophet,  says  Philo,  has  within  him  a  spiritual  sun  for  the  clear  perception 
of  that  which  is  invisible  to  the  senses,  but  comprehensible  to  the  intellect. 

(4)  The  Clementine  Homilies,  however,  in  wliich  this  contrast  first  appears,  go 
so  far  (iii.  12  sqq.)  as  to  reject  every  transient  state  of  insjjiration,  and  say  that 
this  is  tlie  case  with  those  only  who  are  cast  into  a  state  of  enthusiastic  frenzy  by 
the  spirit  of  disorder,  while  they  claim  for  the  true  prophet  an  immanent  spiritual 
principle  {IfK^vTov  Kal  dtwaov  wvEv/xa). 

(5)  In  the  latter  passage  it  is  said  :  tovto  udwEug  l6iov,  to  E^EOTrjKEvat,  rb  uvdyKTjv 
vTTOfj.EVEi.v,  TO  codEladat,  rb  sXKEadai,  Tb  cvpEcOac  ucnEp  fiaivbfiEvov.  '0  cJe  npo<j)fjTr]g~ovx 
ovTug,  dXTid  /lErd  Siavoiag  VTjtpovarjg  Kal  cu(j>povovaj]g  KaTacrdcEug,  Kal  elbog  a  (pdkyyETai, 
<^r]alv  dnavTa'  Ijgte  Kal  npb  Trig  EKfidaEug  KdvTEvdEV  yv('.)pc(^E  tov  fidvriv  Kal  tov  tv pocpriTijv . 

(6)  Compare  Augustine,  ad  Siinplicianum,  ii.  q.  i.  ;  Enarr.  in  Ps.  Ixviii.  ;  de 
Genesi,  xii.  25.  In  the  last-named  passage  this  ecstasy  is  thus  described  :  quando 
penitus  averUtur  et  airipitur  animi  intentio  a  sensibus  corporis,  tunc  magis  ecstasis 
did  solet.  Tunc  omnino,  qumcunque  sint  pnesentia  corpora,  etiam  patentihis  oculis 
nan  videntur,  nee  ullce  voces  prorsrts  audiuntur :  totus  animi  contuitus  aut  in  corpo- 
rum  imaginibus  est  per  spiritnlem,  aut  in  rebus  incojporeis,  nulla  corporis  imagine 
figuratis,  p)er  intellectualem  visionem. 

(7)  Comp.  also  Lib.  x.  cap.  33  (p.  394)  :  si  semper  in  propJietis  esset  sermo  Dei  et 
juge  in  pectore  eorum  hdberet  liospitium,  nunquam  tarn  crebro  Esechiel  poneret :  et 
/actus  est  se7'mo  domini  ad  me  dicens. — The  anti-Montanist  definitions  were  also  em- 
braced by  the  church  theology  of  the  subsequent  centuries.  Compare,  e.g.,  how 
Gregory  the  Great  {Expositio  moral,  on  Job,  ch.  xiii.)  expresses  himself  on  the  sub- 
ject :  cum  aliquid  ostenditur  vel  auditur,  si  inteUectus  non  trihdtur,  prophetia  mini- 
me  est.  Pharaoh,  e.g.,  (Gen.  xli,),  and  Belshazzar  (Dnn.  v.),  had  visions  of  things 
to  come,  but,  being  unable  to  understand  them,  were  no  prophets.  We  first  meet 
with  a  more  thorough  discussion  of  the  matter  among  the  Babbms  of  the  middle 
ages,  especially  Maimonides,  More  Neboch.  ii.  82  sqq.  (comp.  Griitz,  OescMchte  der 
Juden,  vi.  p.  370).  He  distinguishes  three  views  on  prophecy.  According  to  the 
fij^sLand  usual  one,  God  of  His  own  free  choice  calls  prophets  without  regard  to 
their  subjective  qualifications,  with  the  sole  exception  that  only  a  just  man  can 
become  a  prophet.  According  to  the  second,  the  view  of  the  philosophers, 
prophecy  is  a  certain  degree  of  perfection  in  the  nature  of  man,  depending  upon 


§  208.]       VIEW   OP   SUBJECT   IN   OLDER    PROTESTANT  THEOLOGY.  471 

special  talents,  but  needing  to  be  developed  by  diligent  cultivation.  Hence  any 
one  possessing  the  requisite  talents  may  fit  himself  for  a  prophet  ;  while,  on  the 
other  hand,  none  can  become  a  prophet  without  cultivation,  nor  can  prophecy 
appear  unexpectedly,  as  though  one  might  attain  to  it  the  night  before.  Lastly, 
tlie  third  view,  which  Malnionides  desjo-natos  as  that  "of  our  law,"  agrees  with 
the  second  in  requiring  a  natural  talent  for  prophecy,  and  especially  those  strong 
imaginative  powers  which  are  combined  with  a  particular  kind  of  cerebral  organ- 
ization. Hence,  if  the  imaginative  faculty  is  weakened  by  human  sorrow  or 
weariness,  no  prophecy  can  be  produced.  In  this  view,  likewise,  it  is  admitted 
that  any  one  possessing  the  requisite  qualifications  may  fit  himself  both  morally, 
by  the  purification  of  his  desires  and  affections,  and  intellectually  to  be  a  recipient 
of  the  gift  of  prophecy.  But  it  is  denied  that  prophecy  can  be  actually  thus  pro- 
duced, as  is  shown  by  the  example  of  Baruch,  the  disciple  of  Jeremiah  ;  on  the 
contrary,  it  is  God  alone  who  produces  it,  how  and  when  He  will,  in  the  individ- 
ual thus  qualified.  The  distinction  of  degrees  of  prophecy,  subsequently  adopted 
by  other  Rabbins,  especially  by  Abrabanel,  is  also  peculiar  to  Maimonides.  He 
affirms  that  there  are  eleven  (ch.  xlv.).  The  two  first,  which  form  the  prelimi- 
nary stages  of  prophecy  proper,  are  the  endowment  with  the  Spirit  imparted  to 
the  judges,  and  the  inspiration  by  the  Holy  Ghost  bestowed  upon  the  composers  of 
the  Hagiographa  ;  this  inspiration  taking  place  in  the  waking  state,  and  in  one  of 
full  mental  activity.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Divine  word  always  comes  to  the 
prophets  as  such  through  the  medium  of  the  dream  or  vision,  by  which  God 
exerts  an  influence  upon  the  imagination  and  intelligence  of  the  prophet,  and  fills 
both  with  matter  which  he  could  not  have  attained  to  in  an  crdmary  manner  (see 
especially  cap.  38).  It  was  only  to  Moses  that  Divine  revelation  was  vouchsafed 
without  the  intervention  of  the  imaginative  powers.  The  external  agency  of  the 
senses  ceases  during  the  prophetic  state  (cap.  41)  ;  but  Maimonides,  far  from  speak- 
ing of  a  disappearance  of  the  rational  self-consciousness,  on  the  contrary  empha- 
sizes the  intellectual  agency  of  the  prophet.  (The  distinction  of  the  nine  degrees 
of  prophecy  proper  is  so  unprofitable,  that  it  deserves  no  further  notice.) 

§  208. 
Continuation :   View  of  this  Subject  in  the  Older  Protestant  Theology. 

The  propositions  laid  down  by  the  Fathers,  in  opposition  to  the  Montanists, 
were  repeated  by  the  older  Protestant  theoloffians  (1).  The  occurrence  of  ecstasy, 
in  the  sense  in  which  Augustine  defined  it,  was  admitted,  but  it  was  regarded  not 
as  a  constituent  element  of  prophecy,  but  only  as  a  yrejKiratwn  of  the  mind  for 
the  reception  of  revelation.  The  prevailing  theory  of  inspiration  being  applied  to 
prophecy,  the  Protestant  theologians  assumed,  in  the  case  of  prophets,  loth  an  en- 
tire passivity  in  the  reception  of  revelation,  and  a  continued  state  of  rational  con- 
sciousness,  with  at  most  but  momentary  intermissions  (2). 

In  proportion,  however,  as  the  orthodox  notion  of  inspiration  became  uj^scttled, 
more  influence  over  the  form  of  their  predictions  was  of  course  conceded  to  the 
subjectivity  of  the  prophets.  This  was  already  don^  by  Crusius  in  his  Eyjiom- 
nemata  ad  theologiam  2)ropheticam,  1764,  in  which  he  submits  this  subject  to  a 
thorough  investigation.  He  chiefly  insists  upon  the  distinction  between  the  matter 
of  revelation  and  the  form  under  which  it  is  presented  ;  and  with  respect  to  the 
latter,  admits  the  intervention  of  the  free  agency  of  the  organs  of  revelation,  which 
makes  them  not  instrumenta  Dei  passiva,  but  activa,  as  cvvepyoc  rov  Oeov.  With 
respect,  moreover,  to  the  inspiration  of  the  matter,  Crusius  distinguishes  between 
anoKohnlnc  in  the  narrower  sense,  which  produces  new  knowledge  in  man  either 


472  THE  THEOLOGY   OF   PROPHETISM.  [§  208. 

by  a  creative  act  or  by  a  transformation  of  the  knowledge  already  existing,  and 
<puriSM£,  the  illumination  which  excites  and  strengthens  the  knowledge  already 
existing  (p.  93  sq.).  The  distinction  between  apostolic  and  prophetic  inspiration 
is  also  well  brought  out  by  Crusius  (p.  94  sq.).  The  inspiration  of  the  apostles 
was  uninterrupted,  and,  depending  on  the  continued  operation  of  Christ  and  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  them,  made  them  more  like  Christ  :  hence  they  did  not,  except 
in  certain  cases,  like  1  Cor.  vii.  10,  make  use  of  the  formula,  "  Thus saith  the  Lord.'''' 
The  repeated  use  of  this  formula,  on  the  other  hand,  by  the  prophets,  shows  that 
the  state  of  inspiration  was  in  their  case  an  extraordinary  one.  Still,  even  in 
Crusius,  we  meet  with  no  exact  psychological  analysis  of  the  prophetic  state  ;  and 
sucli  discussions  were  still  more  foreign  to  the  theology  then  becoming  prevalent, 
whether  supernaturalistic  (3)  or  rationalistic.  In  the  latter,  which  at  best  saw 
in  the  prophets  only  so  many  rationalists,  any  inquiry  into  the  nature  of  the 
prophetic  state  was  entirely  omitted.  The  visions  which  the  prophets  affirmed 
themselves  to  have  beheld,  were  either  attributed  in  a  general  manner  to  the  poetic 
garb  in  which  they  spontaneously  clothed  prophetic  truths,  or,  if  recognized  in  a 
certain  sense  as  facts,  were  referred  to  a  state  of  violent  mental  excitement. 
Prophecy  in  its  stricter  signification  was  regarded  as  out  of  the  question  ;  so  that 
it  was  a  considerable  step  in  advance  when  De  Wette  (in  the  preface  to  the  first 
edition  of  his  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament)  declared,  that  it  was  a  one-sided 
proceeding  to  judge  these  ancient  seers  according  to  the  spirit  of  our  times,  and 
not  even  to  admit  that  they  attem2)ted  to  2^Tophesy.  He  was  even  so  fair  as  to  con- 
cede that  the  prophets  had  genuinejpresentiments  of  the  future. 

The  question  under  our  notice  received,  however,  a  powerful  impetus,  when 
Hengstenberg  {Ghristology  of  the  0.  T.  1st  German  ed.  p.  293  sqq.)  revived  in  all 
its  rigid  one-sidedness  the  Montanist  theory  of  prophecy  (4).  For  he  laid  down 
the  proposition  (p.  294)  that  the  prophets,  when  recipients  of  revelation,  were  in 
an  extraordinary  condition,  essentially  differing  from  their  usual  state — in  an 
EKaramcj  in  which  the  intelligent  consciousness  retreated,  and  the  spontaneity,  heing 
suppressed  ly  a  powerful  operation  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  was  reduced  to  a  state  of  pas- 
sivity. They  were  then,  however,  truly  exalted  to  a  higher  region  (p.  297  sq.), 
because  not  only  the  intelligent  consciousness  but  also  the  lower  psychical  life  re- 
treated, and  they  were  thus  fitted  to  receive,  like  an  unsullied  mirror,  impressions 
of  Divine  truth.  In  the  case  of  heathen  seers,  on  the  other  hand,  the  suppression 
of  the  intelligent  consciousness  was  effected  by  exciting  the  lower  portion  of  the 
soul  to  contend  against  the  higher.  (We  shall  commence  our  further  discussion 
of  this  subject  by  criticising  this  theory.) 

(1)  See  e.g.  Carjizov,  Introd.  V.T.  p.  36  sq.,  and  on  what  follows,  p.  24. 
_  (2)  See  also  Buddeus,  Institut.  theol.  dogrn.  p.  82,  and  the  almost  literally  iden- 
tical remark  of  Cotta  on  Gerhard's  Loci,  ii.  p.  21  ;  Vitringa,  Typus  doctrhm  pro- 
pheticm,  p.  18.  Witsius,  in  his  treiLtise  de  prophetis  et  prophetia  (printed  in  the 
Miscell.  sacr.  1),  gives  a  somewhat  fuller  investigation  of  the  questions  involved. 
He  here  (cap.  9)  opposes  those  who  make  prophecy  the  result  of  natural  disposition, 
viz.  of  a  very  vivid  imagination  (so  especially  Spinoza  in  the  Tract,  theol.  polit.  p. 
98  sqq.  ed.  Gfrorer),  of  a  melancholy  temperament,  natural  foresight,  intellectual 
penetration,  etc.,  and  affirms  that  tlie  freeness  of  that  Divine  grace  from  which 
the  prophets  received  their  vocation  was  unrestricted,  and  least  of  all  confined  to 
elevated  minds.     The  revelatio  prophetica  itself  is  on  the  one  hand  simplex,  solo 


§  209.]  INDIVIDUAL  LIFE   IN   THE   PROPHETIC   STATE,  473 

interno  spiritus  instinctu  peracta,  on  the  other  symhoUca  (cap.  ;5,  §  1)  ;  the  hitter 
being  occasioned  partly  by  the  external  senses,  partly  by  the  imagination  (§3). 
In  the  latter  case,  spiritus  nnimnles  per  i)oluntatcm  Dei  ita  arjitantur  in  cerehro  et 
cerebrum  eo  modo  afficiunt,  quo  modo  externa  ohjectu  Mud  commovissent,  -which  may 
take  place  both  in  the  waking  and  sleeping  states.  Ecstasy  is  reckoned  among 
these,  and  defined  (cap.  4,  §  1)  as  tanta.  mentis  alienatio,  ut  cessantibus  externorum 
sensuum  functionibus,  ipsa  eoi'um  quae,  in  corpore  geruntur  proi'sus  ignara,  tota  vehe- 
mentibxis  fixisq^te  cogitatioyiibus  occupata  sit. 

(3)  Supematuralism  occupied  itself  with  Old  Testament  prophecy  chiefly  for 
the  sake  of  making  use  of  the  evidence  of  prophecy  in  the  defence  of  revelation. 

(4)  In  the  2d  ed.  iv.  p.  396-444  sqq.,  theearlier  view  is  essentially  modified. 
[See  further  upon  and  against  Hengstenberg,  Riehm,  p.  15  sqq.,  and  Konig,  ii. 
53  sqq.,  83  sqq.] 

§  209. 

Continuation:    Continuity  and  Elevation  of  the  Individual  lAfe  in  the  Froj^hetie 

State.  "  "    ^<>^  oi.|,Kva.-+ecL 

In  this  earlier  view  maintained  by  Hengstenberg,  truth  and  error  are  blended.  It  is 
true  that  in  prophecy  states  do  occur  in  which  the  individual  life  is  subjugated  by 
the  power  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  but  it  is  not  true  that  these  coincide  with  the  state 
of  prophetic  revelation,  nay,  that  they  are  even  essential  thereto.  The  states  of 
ecstasy  which  took  place  at  the  school  of  the  prophets  at  Ramah,  one  of  which  is 
described  1  Sam.  xix.  24  (1),  have  already  been  alluded  to  in  the  historical  section 
(§  162).  It  may  be  that  the  designation  of  the  prophets  as  mad  (D'^^JB'D),  recurring 
in  different  passages  (2  Kings  ix.  11  ;  Hos.  ix.  7  ;  Jer.  xxix.  26),  referred  not 
merely  to  the  matter  of  their  addresses,  but  to  some  such  state.  [But  in  Jer.  xxix. 
26,  Hos.  ix.  7,  the  word  refers  io  false  jtrophets  ;  2  K.  ix.  11  it  is  used  scoffingly 
of  true  prophets. — D.]  (2)  Still  such  jjhenomena  cannot  be  regarded  as  normal  m 
prophecy,  as  is  shown  even  by  the  passages  to  which  Hengstenberg  chiefly  appeals, 
and  which  plainly  show  that  self-consciousness  and  spontaneity  did  not  disappear 
during  the  reception  of  revelation  ;  that  the  prophets  were  indeed  at  this  moment 
determined  objectively  by  the  Divine  word  which  came  to  them,  but  by  reason  of 
the  continuance  of  their  self-consciousness  were  conscious  of  this  objective  deter- 
mination, and  were  capable  of  free  choice  with  respect  to  the  Divine  call  addressed 
to  them.     In  short,  they  were  in  a  state  of  passive  receptivity. 

Thus  Isaiah,  in  his  initiatory  vision,  which  he  describes  ch.  vi.  (3),  is  indeed 
conscious  that  he  is  a  sinful  man  ;  he  is  also  conscious  that  his  iniquity  is  taken 
away  and  his  sin  purged,  and  declares  himself  ready  in  consequence  to  undertake 
the  Divine  commission.  Jeremiah,  too,  in  his  inaugural  vision,  ch.  i.,  was  con- 
scious of  his  own  nonage  and  weakness  (ver.  6)  ;  and  if  he  did  not  resist  the 
overwhelming  pressure  of  the  Divine  call,  nor  refuse  to  fulfil,  even  amidst  con- 
tempt and  persecution,  the  vocation  imposed  upon  him,  this  yielding  on  his  part, 
however  hard  God  might  have  made  it  for  him  to  kick  against  the  pricks,  still 
rested  in  its  deepest  ground  upon  a  moral  determination  (4).  It  is  true  that 
Ezelciel,  when  he  received  the  vision,  ch.  i.,  fell  down  overpowered  by  the  -sight 
(ver.  28),  but  in  order  to  receive  the  revelation  he  had  to  stand  up  again,  ii.  1  sqq., 
and  that  (ver.  2)  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit  who  entered  into  him  ;  and  he  then, 
evidently  with  complete  consciousness,  received  the  Divine  word.     It  is  true  also 


i74  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  PKOPHETISM.  [^  210. 

that  Daniel  sank  down  stunned  in  consequence  of  a  vision  (x.  8-10),  but  he  did  not 
receive  the  revelation  till  he  had  recovered  himself  (comp.  also  Rev.  i.  17).  The 
continuity  of  self-consciousness  presupposes  that  the  remembrance  of  the  revela- 
tions they  received  in  these  visions  remained  vv^ith  the  prophets,  and  that  they 
themselves,  and  not  others,  described  what  they  had  seen  (so  e.g.  Zech.  1.  sqq.). 
It  is  this  circumstance,  to  mention  it  in  passing,  which  makes  so  decided  a  dis- 
tinction between  proi^hecy  and  those  psychical  phenomena  with  which  it  has  been 
so  often  compared,  viz.  somnambulism  and  the  higher  grades  of  mantic  ecstasy, 
such  e.g.  as  still  occur  in  Shamanism  (5),  when  there  is  uj^on  awaking  no  remem- 
hrance  of  what  has  been  uttered.  Besides,  whatever  harm  the  visional  state  may 
do  to  the  physical  life  in  the  case  even  of  true  prophets,  as  Daniel  e.g.  says,  viii. 
27,  that  he  was  sick  several  days  in  consequence  of  a  vision,  this  cannot  be  desig- 
nated as  a  su2)p7'ession  of  the  individual  life.  On  the  contrary,  the  jirophet  felt 
himself^inwardly  elevated.  Isaiah  (ch.  viii.  11  sqq.),  when  under  the  pressure  of  the 
Divine  hand  p'n  ripTtl,  by  which  the  visional  state  is  intended),  knew  himself  to 
be  under  Divine  instruction,  which  no  longer  suffered  him  to  walk  in  the  way  of 
the  multitude  ;  JeremiaTi,  though  he  feared,  naturally  speaking,  to  fail  before  his 
enemies,  yet  knew  that  he  should  prevail  over  them  all  through  the  power  of  the 
Spirit,  i.  19,  xv.  20,  xx,  11  ;  comp.  Hab.  iii.  19,  etc.  (6).  In  thus  showing,  how- 
ever, that  the  ind^'virlnul  lifp  is  not  obliterated  but  enhanced  in  the  prophetic 
state,  we  have  still  left  the  question,  wTiut  the  fsycMcalform  of  fropkecy  properly 
is,  without  an  answer. 

(1)  According  to  1  Sam.  xix.  24,  Saul,  when  seized  by  the  spirit  of  prophecy 
in  the  school  of  the  prophets,  stripped  off  his  clothes  also  (J^'H  DJ,  therefore  like 
the  prophets),  and  prophesied,  and  lay  down  naked  all  that  day  and  all  that  night, 
— a  circumstance  which  recalls  to  mind  the  Delphian  Pythia,  who  in  her  ecstasy 
stripped  herself  of  her  garments.  [Q'^J',  naked  :  (a)  scantily  clothed.  Job  xxii.  6, 
xxiv.  7,  10,  Isa.  Iviii.  7  ;  (h)  of  one  who  lays  aside  his  outer  garment,  and~  has 
on  only  the  tunic,  1  Sam.  xix.  24,  Isa.  xx.  2  (Miihlau  and  Volck's  Gesenius). — D.] 

(2)  This  climax  of  the  ecstatic  state,  in  which  self-consciousness  disappears, 
seems  to  belong  especially  to  the  older  times  of  the  prophethood  (§  162,  with  note 
2.) 

(3)  [The  assertion  of  Duhm  (p.  86),  that  this  vision  was  used  long  after  by  the 
prophet  for  the  clothing  of  new  prophetic  ideas,  and  therefore  cannot  be  used 
in  evidence  of  the  prophetic  state,  is  without  foundation.] 

(4)  Thus  too  Amos,  who  lays  such  special  stress  upon  the  Divine  initia- 
tive, refers  the  prophetic  vocation,  iii.  3,  to  an  agreement  between  God  and  the 
prophet. 

(5)  We  are  acquainted  with  the  latter  especially  from  the  travels  of  Herr.  v. 
Matjuschkin  ;  comp.  e.g.  Tholuck,  id.   p.  8  sqq. 

(6)  According  to  Hab.  iii.  19,  the  prophet  walks  triumphantly  upon  the  high 
places  on  which  God  has  placed  him.  Comp.  also  1  Sam.  x.  6,  9,  and  what  was 
stated,  §  161,  on  the  ethical  influence  of  the  prophetic  spirit. 

§210. 

Continuation  :  Prophecy  an  Inward  Intuition. 

Those  who  endeavor  to  explain  the  prophetic  state  on  natural  and  psycholog- 
ical grounds,  are  accustomed  to  regard  it  as  produced  by  a  considerable  excite- 
paent  ^nd  exaltation  of  the  erriotjons.    This  is  so  far  correct,  that  t^his  state  is^r«. 


§  210.]  PROPHECY  AN   INWARD   INTUITION.  475 

ceded  by^ne_of  strong  excitement  of  the  feelings  ;  nay,  that  the  hitter  may 
often  be  intentionally  jn-oduced  as  a  preparation  for  the  former,  for  which  pur- 
pose music  is  especially  employed,  see  2  Kings  iii.  15.  To  this  may  also  be  referred 
the  circumstance  alluded  to  by  Hengstenberg  (Christology,  iv.  p.  400),  that  the 
prophets  sometimes  (comp.  Ezek.  i.  3,  Dan.  x.  4)  received  their  visions  by  the 
sides  of  rivers,  because  the  murmur  of  the  v?aters  could  not  but  assist  in  produc- 
ing in  them  the  desired  state  of  mind.  But  that  feeling  constitutes  the  essential 
form  of  the  prophetic  state,  is  refuted,  as  Bruno  Bauer  justly  remarks  {Die  Relig- 
ion des  Alien  Testaments,  ii.  p.  306),  by  the  fact  that  in  feeling,  the  matter  felt 
is  not  yet  separated  from  the  subjective  spirit,  while  the  matter  upon  which  the 
prophetic  spirit  operates  is  ohjectively  given  outside  itself.  Undoubtedly  the  proph- 
ets were  often  in  a  state  of  excited  feeling  at  the  times  when  they  uttered  their 
predictions,  and  did  not,  as  merely  mechanical  instruments  of  the  inspiring 
Spirit,  comport  themselves  in  an  utterly  indifferent  manner  with  respect  to  their 
prophecies.  They  were  stirred  by  fear  and  hope,  filled  with  sorrow  and  joy,  and 
this  as  intensely  as  if  the  matter  they  predicted  were  the  subject  of  their  own  ex- 
perience. But  that  in  such  cases  the  frame  of  mind  was  of  secondary  impoj'tance, 
that  it  was  produced  by  the  objective  influence  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  is  evident 
especially  from  the  circumstance  that  the  feeling  natural  to  the  projjhet  was  fre- 
quently exchanged  for  just  its  opposite.  Thus  the  emotion  natural  to  a  prophet 
when  announcing  judgments  against  the  enemies  of  his  country  is  evidently  that 
of  joy.  Nevertheless  passages  are  found  in  which  the  prophet  is  so  carried  away  by 
his  own  vivid  realization  of  the  woes  which  he  announces,  as  to  be  full  of  sorrow 
and  lamentation.  Comp.  th(?  prophecy  concerning  Moab,  Isa.  xvi.  9-11,  and  that 
concerning  Babylon,  xxi.  1-10,  where  this  state  of  mind  is  very  distinctly  portrayed. 
In  the  vision,  which  is  described  ver.  2  as  a  grievous  one,  the  prophet  beholds  the 
Medo-Persian  hosts  advancing  against  Babylon,  and  is  immediately  transported 
into  the  night  in  which  Babylon  is  overthrown.  His  natural  feeling  as  an  Israel- 
ite would  have  been  one  of  joy  at  the  deliverance  of  his  peoj^le,  to  whose  sorrows 
an  end  was  thus  appointed  ;  yet  the  revelation  he  has  received  has  so  overpower- 
ing an  effect  upon  his  feelings,  that  he  feels  the  sorrows  about  to  fall  upon  Baby- 
lon just  as  though  they  were  his  own,  ver.  3  sq.  (1). — On  the  other  hand,  the 
feeling  natural  to  the  prophet  must  exercise  no  influence  upon  his  predictions  ; 
comp.  e.g.  Jer.  xvii.  IG  (§  206,  note  2).  Even  when  the  prophet  knows  himself 
to  be  the  herald  of  the  Divine  wrath,  even  such  a  message  from  God  must  be  rel- 
ished by  him,  sec  Ezek.  iii.  1  sqq.  compared  with  ii.  10,  iii.  14,  Rev.  x.  9  sq.,  and 
be  received  with  joy  and  delight,  Jer.  xv.  16. 

The  psvchical  form  of  prophecy  is  rather  that  of  an  inward  intuition,  taking  the 
word  in  its  wider  signification.  It  belongs  to  this  intuition  that  the  subject  is 
aware  that  the  object  is  directly  given,  and  not  produced  by  his  own  agency  ; 
and  this  is  just  what  the  jirophets  affirm  with  respect  to  their  prophecies.  Hence 
the  prophets  designate  themselves  as  seers,  n^'i,  which,  according  to  1  Sam.  ix. 
9,  was  the  former  customary  appellation  of  prophets,  and  more  frequently  nrn. 
See  Isa.  xxx.  10,  and  many  other  passages,  especially  in  the  Books  of  Chronicles. 
Often  as  the  attempt  has  been  made,  no  decided  difference  can  be  shown  between 
the  expressions  nx*i  and  nrn,  so  far  as  they  are  used  to  designate  the  prophetic 
perception  (2),     pm,  which  in  Hebrew  (though  not  in  Chaldee)  belongs  rather 


476  THE  THEOLOGY   OF   PROPHETISM.  [§  210, 

to  poetic  diction,  is  used  as  a  somewhat  more  solemn  expression  ;  for  the  pro- 
phetic seeing  (as  something  extraordinary),  ri^TH,  |VTn,  and  especially,  I'lTH,  are 
the  frequently  recurring  appellations  of  the  revelations  imparted  to  the  prophets. 
Sometimes  this  inward  perception  of  the  prophets  is  also  styled  a  hearing^  e.g. 
Num.  xxiv.  4,  16,  Isa.  xxi.  10  (3),  xxviii.  22,  with  which  compare  also  v.  9,  xxii. 
14.  In  1.  4,  on  the  contrary,  the  words,  "  He  wakeneth  morning  by  morning, 
He  wakeneth  mine  ear  to  hear  as  the  instructed  "  (i.  e.  takes  me  to  His  school), 
refer  not  so  much  to  the  reception  of  revealed  knowledge  as  to  the  Lord's  supply- 
ing His  servant  with  grace  to  walk  with  patient  obedience  in  the  path  prescribed 
to  him.  The  prophets,  however,  chiefly  choose  the  expression  to_see,  even  when 
it  is  a  mere  form  of  speech,  for  the  manner  in  which  they  became  directly  con- 
scious of  the  God-given  matter  (4)  ;  see  e.g.  Amos  i.  1  (5),  Isa.  ii.  1,  Hab.  i.  1, 
and  especially  ii.  1  (see  below).  There  is  also  a  reference  to  this  form  of  proph- 
ecy in  the  designations  of  D'SVp,  O'Sbf,  i.e.  sjoies,  D'lpt^,  watchmen,  though  the 
latter  name  has  also  a  wider  signification  (§  162).  As  the  watchman  upon  the 
tower  keeps  a  look-out  for  anything  that  may  appear  in  the  distance,  and  when 
he  sees  danger  approaching  sounds  his  horn,  so  do  the  prophets  behold  events 
dawning  upon  the  distant  horizon  of  time,  that  by  announcing  them  they  may 
warn  or  comfort  the  people,  who  are  ignorant  of  the  future  ;  see  Jer.  vi.  17  (6), 
Amos  iii.  6,  Isa.  lii.  8,  Ezek.  xxxiii.  2  sqq.  Hence,  too,  they  are  called,  Isa. 
xxix.  10,  the  eyes  of  the  people.  Specially  instructive  in  this  respect  is  the  pas- 
sage Hab.  ii.  1.  The  prophet's  mind  is  agitated  by  the  conflict  with  doubt,  he 
is  longing  for  light  upon  the  enigmas  of  time,  and  exclaims  :  "I  will  stand  upon 
my  watch,  and  set  me  upon  the  tower,  and  will  watch  to  see  what  He  will  say 
within  me,  and  what  I  shall  bring  back  upon  my  reproof."  This  passage  may  be 
taken  literally  (as  by  Hitzig),  viz.  as  saying  that  the  prophet  sought  a  solitary 
place,  where,  directing  his  glance  toward  heaven  and  his  collected  spirit  to  God, 
he  looked  for  revelation.  Probably,  however,  this  prophetic  saying  is  to  be 
spiritually  understood,  as  is  indispensably  necessary  in  the  similar  passage,  Isa. 
xxi.  6,  8.  The  latter  pasage  is  also  worthy  of  note,  on  account  of  the  distinction 
it  makes  between  the  seeing  spirit  of_thepropliet  and  his  ordinary  subiegtivity. 
For  he  sets  another  as  watchman  upon  the  tower,  to  declare  what  the  Lord  causes 
him  to  see,  and  what  is  to  be  announced  to  the  people.  In  ver.  11  sq.  of  the 
same  chapter,  on  the  other  hand,  the  prophet  himself  reappears  as  watchman. 

What  now  the  prophet  perceives  is  a  T\]T\]  I^T  (word  of  Jehovah),  a  n\n)  D«3 
(which  expression  represents  the  mysterious  nature  of  the  inwardly  perceived 
Divine  voice),  a  ^"^^  (a  lofty  or  eminent  saying)  (7),  etc.  Such  words  of  revela- 
tion fall,  according  to  what  was  remarked  above,  under  the  notion  of  the  ji?n  in 
its  wider  sense.  "When,  however,  the  image  awakened  by  the  revelation  appears 
in  a  plastic  form  before  the  mind  of  the  prophet,  a  vision  in  the  stricter  sense  takes 
place,  and  this  is  of  a  symbolical  character,  the  matter  of  the  prophecy  being  re- 
flected in  the  imagination  of  the  prophet  (8).  With  respect  to  msional  symholism, 
there  is  a  remarkable  difference  between  individual  ])rophet.s.  In  some,  especially 
the  more  ancient,  it  is  simple,  and  therefore  for  the  most  part  easily  understood,  e.g. 
the  visions  of  Amos,  ch.  vii.  sqq.  (9).  In  Ezekiel,  Zechariah,  and  Daniel,  on  the 
contrary,  the  symbolism  is  more  complicated  ;  and  cases  occur  in  which  the  proph- 
et himself  does  not  understand  the  images  he  beholds,  and  requests  an  explanatioa 


§  210.]  PKOPHECY   AN   INWARD   INTUITION.  477 

of  them  (Zech.  iv.  4,  Dan.  viii.  15).  The  prophets  are,  moreover,  frequently  re- 
quired to  express  the  substance  of  the  Divine  messages  by  symbolical  actions.  In 
many  of  these  cases,  however  (especially  in  Ezekiel),  it  may  be  questioned  whether 
the  action  really  took  place  externally,  as  e.g.  Isa.  xx.  3,  or  whether  it  belongs 
merely  to  the  vision  (10)  (11). 


(1)  Isa.  xxi.  3  sq.  :  "  My  loins  are  filled  with  pain  :  pangs  have  taken  hold  of 
me,  as  the  pangs  of  a  woman  that  travaileth  :  I  was  bowed  at  the  hearing  of  it  ; 
I  was  dismayed  at  the  saying  of  it  :  my  heart  panted,  fearf ulness  affrighted  me  : 
the  night  of  my  pleasures  hath  He  turned  into  fear  to  me." 

(2)  [The  distinction  stated  by  Vitringa,  that  HNT  is  the  more  general  expression, 
and  that  njn  expresses  more  the  ecstatic  gazing,  cannot  be  sustained.  Orelli 
(p.  6  sqq.)  remarks  :  The  distinction  between  these  two  words  is  that  the  former 
indicates  the  relation  of  the  eye  to  an  object  it  sees,  the  latter  the  fixing  of  the 
gaze  upon  the  form  of  the  object,  and  hence  upon  an  image.  They  are  accord- 
ingly related  to  each  other  like  our  "  see"  and  "  gaze." — The  relation  of  the  two 
words  has  been  discussed  at  some  length  by  Konig  (ii.  29  sqq).  He  observes  that 
the  true  prophets  refuse  to  recognize  "  seeing"  ("TJI),  but  not  "  gazing"  (Hjn)  on 
the  part  of  the  false  prophets,  while  conversely  they  never  employ  the  latter  term  in 
speaking  of  themselves — which  last  position  is  tenable  only  by  regarding  Isa.  xxx. 
10  as  a  later  gloss,  or  by  understanding  D'TH  to  refer  to  other  persons  than  the  D'5<"1 
in  the  same  verse,  and  also  by  considering  superscriptions  like  Isa.  i.  1,  ii.  1  not 
to  have  been  written  by  the  prophet  himself.  Konig  comes  to  the  conclusion  that 
HNT  in  contrast  with  Hin  can  only  mean  a  literal  seeing  (with  the  bodily  eye), 
while  the  latter  word  is  used,  in  regard  to  the  false  prophets,  to  indicate  an  interior 
process,  and  characterizes  their  declarations  as  something  projected  from  the 
interior  of  man  outward.] 

(3)  Isa.  xxi.  10  :  "  That  which  I  have  heard  of  the  Lord  of  hosts,  the  God  of 
Israel,  have  I  declared  unto  you." 

(4)  Which  Augustine,  de  Oenesi,  xii.  25,  calls  in  the  above-quoted  passage  the 
intellectualis  visio,  in  distinction  from  the  spiritualis. 

(5)  Amos  i.  1:   "  The  words  of  Amos,  .   .  .  which  he  saw." 

(6)  Jer.  vi.  17  :  "I  have  set  watchmen  over  you,  Hearken  to  the  sound  of  the 
trumpet." 

(7)  It  is  quite  a  mistake,  and  by  no  means  follows  from  the  play  upon  the  word, 
Jer.  xxiii.  33  sqq.,  to  say  that  the  word  t<t^?  in  the  titles  of  the  prophecies  means, 
as  Hengstenberg  tries  to  prove  (Christology,  iii.  p.  380),  "  burden,"  and  introduces 
only  threatening  addresses.  [Comp.  also  Keil  on  Nahum  i.  1  and  Jer.  xxiii.  33.] 
The  passage  Lam.  ii.  14,  where  the  sayings  of  the  false  prophets  who  flattered  the 
people  are  called  i<1.^  fllK^D,  is  decisive  against  this  view,  notwithstanding  the 
turn  which  Hengstenberg  manages  to  give  it.  There  is  in  the  expression  Xti/D  (prop- 
erly that  which  is  raised  above)  a  certain  emphasis,  and  this  circumstance  explains 
why  it  is  so  often  applied  to  addresses  which  pronounce  penalties. 

(8)  There  is,  as  Tholuck  justly  remarks  (id.  p.  54),  no  distinction  of  degree  and 
time  between  the  two  forms  of  revelation,  viz.  those  by  word  and  image  ;  it  is 
rather  the  psychical  state  of  the  individual  prophet  which  here  seems  to  exert  its 
influence.  [Konig  doubts  the  part  here  assigned  to  the  imagination  in  visions 
(see  ii.  p.  125),  and  says,  among  other  things,  if  thinking  and  imagination  had 
been  used  as  means  of  information,  the  prophets  could  not  have  been  convinced  of 
the  objective  reality  of  what  took  place  :  they  could  not  have  been  sure  of  their 
calling  if  made  in  a  vision. — But  the  objectivity  of  a  revelation  is  not  dependent 
upon  the  reality  of  the  images  seen,  but  upon  the  fact  that  God  presents  them  to 
the  prophet's  sight.] 

(9)  Amos  vii. ,  the  devouring  locusts  and  the  consuming  fire  as  images  of  the  Divine 
judgments,  the  plumb-line  laid  to  the  wall  as  symbolical  of  the  dealings  of  the 


478  THE   THEOLOGY   OF    PROPHETISM.  [§  211. 

Divine  justice  ;  ch.  viii.,  the  basket  of  ripe  fruit  as  an  image  of  the  nation  ripe 
for  judgment. 

(10)  There  is  scarcely  a  point  in  prophetic  theology  concerning  which  theo- 
logians so  greatly  differ.  Comp.  the  marriage  of  Hosea,  which  Hengstenberg 
affirms  to  be  a  purely  visional  occurrence.  No  general  principle  can  be  laid  down 
by  which  to  determine  how  far  such  actions  pertain  to  the  province  of  the 
external  or  the  internal.  (Comp.  Tholuck,  id.  p.  60  ;  Bleek,  Introduction  to  the 
Old  Testament,  ii.  p.  18. 

(11)  [In  opposition  to  the  view  of  revelation  as  communicated  by  internal  gaz- 
ing or  perception,  Konig  takes  the  position  that  it  is  rather  by  means  of  the 
external  organs,  the  eyes  and  ears  (comp.  ii.  §  15  sqq.).  The  immediate  sight  of 
the  Deity  which  appears  in  Num.  xii.  6-8  as  the  special  pre-eminence  of  Moses,  he 
regards  not  as  contrasting  him  with  the  prophet  of  the  Scriptures,  but  only  with 
"mediate"  prophets.  "I  assume  that  the  ordinarily  invisible  background  of 
the  universe  was  really  opened  to  the  bodily  eye  (under  certain  circumstances 
specially  sharpened)  of  the  prophet,  that  e.g.  the  chariot  of  God  was  really  shown 
to  Ezekiel"  (ii.  128).  But  this  inevitably  involves  the  conclusion  that  an  objec- 
tive reality  must  be  attributed  to  the  chariot.  Can  Konig  admit  this  ?  And  how 
will  he  explain  the  visions  in  which  not  "the  invisible  background  of  the  uni- 
verse," but  what  pertains  to  the  visible  universe  is  seen,  as  in  Am.  viii.  2,  Jer. 
i.  11  sq.,  13  sq.  ?  What  sort  of  basket  of  figs  was  it  which  Amos  saw,  and  what 
kind  of  an  almond  rod  and  boiling  pot  did  Jeremiah  behold  with  the  bodily 
eyes  ?] 

§  311. 

The  Prophetic  State  illustrated  ly  Analogies  in  the   Ordinary  Life  of  the  Spirit: 
Dreams,  Communion  with  God  in  Prayer. 

If  we  seek  from  analogous  occurrences  in  the  ordinary  life  of  the  human  spirit,  to 
cast  some  light  on  the  nature  of  prophetic  sight  or  perception,  the  first  which 
seems  to  offer  itself  for  comparison  is  the  vivid  dream,  in  which  the  self-conscious- 
ness which  had  withdrawn  during  sleep  again  dawns  and  thus  fastens  in  the 
memory  the  images  seen  in  the  dreams.  That  the  Old  Testament  does_jiat 
exclude_llije_dream  (1)  as  a  medium  of  revelation,  was  shown  §  66,  where, 
however,  it  wasalso  remarked  that  the  Old  Testament  speaks  of  dream- 
revelations  almost  solely  in  the  cases  of  such  as  were  not,  strictly  speaking, 
organs  of  revelation.  In  Jer.  xxiii.  25,  comp.  with  Dent.  xiii.  2  sqq.,  and  Zech. 
X.  2  sqq.,  itisTaid  down  as  a  token  of  the  false  prophets  that  they  chiefly  appealed 
to  dreams  ;  and  Jeremiah  opposes  to  these  the  revelations  imparted  to  himself, 
xxiii.  28  (see  §  66,  note  3).  Hence  it  is  all  the  less  probable  that  in  the  difficult 
and  obscure  passage  xxxi.  26  he  is  himself,  as  many  suppose,  referring  to  a  reve- 
lation by  means  of  a  dream.  Nor  are  the  night  visions  of  Zechariah,  ch.  i.-vi., 
to  be  regarded  as  ordinary  dreams.  Ch.  iv.  1,  which  tells  us  that  the  prophet 
was  awakened  for  the  reception  of  the  vision  (2),  shows  that  his  visional  state  was 
not  one  of  dreaming.  In  Daniel  (vii.  1),  the  revelation  advances  from  the  dream 
to  the  higher  vision.  The  reason  why  only  a  subordinate  importance  is  attributed 
to  dreams,  is  easy  to  perceive.  Although  sleep,  by  reason  of  its  withdrawal  of  a 
man  from  the  external  world,  seems  specially  favorable  for  the  intercourse  of  the 
Divine  with  the  human  spirit ;  still,  on  the  other  hand,  a  man  in  this  condition  is 
iiot  duly  capable^  of  distinguishing  between  what  proceeds  from  his  own  heart  (f^t? 
J?,  Jer.  xxiii.  16)  and  Divine  inspiration.     The  Divine  word,  on  the  contrary, 


§211.]        PROPHETIC    STATE   ILLUSTKATED    IN    ORDINARY   LIFE.  470 

must  come  to  the  prophets  in  such  a  manner  as  to  leave  tliem  in  no  kind  of  doubt 
that  it  is  such.  It  is  true  that  among  the  conditions  witli  which  the  vision  is 
combined  there  is  found  iilso  a  sleep,  whicli  outwardly  appears  to  be  a  state  of 
deep  insensibility,  npn^n  D^^J,  Dan.  viii.  18,  x.  9.  The  seer  sinks  down,  his 
external  eyes  closed,  while  his  internal  eyes  are  opened,  Num.  xxiv.  4,  15.  The 
visional  state  is  sometimes  enhanced  even  to  rapture,  Ezek.  viii.  1-3,  xi.  1. 
There  is  a  rapture  described  by  Paul,  2  Cor.  xii.  2-4,  which,  to  use  the  words 
of  Delitzsch  {Biblical  Psychology,  p.  336),  touches  the  boundaries  of  life  and 
death,  i.e.  of  the  separation  of  soul  and  body  (3).  But  in  far  the  greater  number 
of  cases  we  must  evidently  conceive  of  the  state  in  which  the  prophet  receives  a 
revelation  as  merely  one  oiprofoujid  self-introversion  and  collectedness  of  mind  in  a 
stqteof  perfect  ical'efidness.  This  prophetic  state  is  most  nearly  related  to  com- 
munion  icith  Ood  in  prayer.  It  should  be  carefully  noted  that  tlie  same  expression 
which  is  generally  used  in  the  Old  Testament  for  the  hearing  of  prayer,  viz.  that 
God  answers,  nj;;,  is  also  frequently  applied  to  prophetic  revelation  {e.g.  in  Mic.  iii. 
7,  Hab.  ii.  1  sq.,  Jer.  xxiii.  35,  and  other  passages).  When  suddenly,  at  once, 
and  with  full  certainty,  the  conviction  of  the  Divine  audience  enters  the  soul  of 
the  petitioner  as  an  inwardly  perceived  answer  (4),  such  a  conviction  is  entirely 
analogous  to  the  manner  in  which  the  word  of  God  came  to  the  prophets  ;  and 
hence  we  find  that  many  supplicatory  psalms  conclude  in  a  strain  quite  prophetic. 
And  as  the  Divine  answer  presupposes  a  request  on  the  part  of  the  petitioner,  so 
also  do  we  find  the  prophets  in  certain  cases  bringing  before  God  in  prayer  the 
matters  concerning  which  they  desire  Divine  revelation  (Jer.  xxxii.  16,  xlii.  4, 
Hab.  i.,  Dan.  ix.  4  sqq.)  ;  nay,  in  Jer.  xxxiii.  2,  calling  upon  God  is  the  presup- 
posed condition  of  obtaining  revelation  •  "  Call  unto  me,  and  I  will  answer  thee, 
and  show  thee  great  and  hidden  things  which  thou  knowest  not"  (5). — This 
point  is  particularly  fitted  to  bring  to  light  the  ct'hic(d  character  of  the  prophet's 
relation  to  God.  It  is  true  that  the  God  whose  Spirit  so  pervades  all  things  that 
every  word  uttered  by  a  human  tongue  is  before  Ilim  (Ps.  cxxxix.  4,  7),  may, 
according  to  Holy  Scripture,  constrain  even  a  Balaam  to  predict  blessings  to  Israel, 
reveal  the  future  in  dreams  to  a  Nebuchadnezzar,  employ  (Ezek.  xxi.  26  sq.)  even 
forms  of  heathen  manticism  for  His  own  purposes,  and  so  direct  the  words  of  a 
Caiaphas,  John  xi.  51,  as  to  make  him  prophesy  without  his  own  knowledge  or 
will.  But  certain  as  it  is  that  there  is,  as  the  examples  just  adduced  show,  a  Di- 
vine influence  in  virtue  of  which  a  man  must  either  say  what  he  desires  not  to  say, 
or  voluntarily  utter  that  to  which  a  Divine  meaning  neither  known  nor  intended 
by  himself  is  imparted,  still  this  does  not  justify  us  in  ignoring  the  subjective 
factor  in  revelation  furnished  by  the  true  prophets.  For  in  the  case  of  these 
organs  of  Divine  revelation,  properly  so  called,  their  self-surrender  and  their  own 
acquiescence  in  the  Divine  counsels  of  which  they  were  to  be  the  messengers  (6) 
corresponded,  as  has  been  already  remarked  (§  200),  with  the  Divine  choice  and 
calling.  Thus  there  arose  an  understanding,  a  mutual  intercourse  between  God 
and  the  prophet,  in  which  the  latter  gave  his  whole  being,  with  its  special  qualifi- 
cations, to  the  fulfilment  of  his  office,  and  lived  his  whole  life  with  reference 
thereto.  Whatever  the  prophet  learned,  experienced,  or  observed,  all  that  he 
feared  or  hoped,  all  concerning  which  he  needed  counsel  or  information,  nay, 
even  the  external  events  which  concerned  him  personally,  see  e.g.  IIos.  i.,  Ezek. 


480  THE   THEOLOGY    OF   PROPHETISM.  [§  211. 

xxiv.  18  sqq..  all  offered  so  many  jmnts  of  connection  by  which  the  Divine  word 
might  reach  him,  and  that  word  clothed  itself  in  forms  which  had  a  relation  to 
the  idiosyncrasy  and  experience  of  the  prophet,  and  was  reported  by  him  according 
to  his  individual  rhetorical  or  literary  powers  (7).  This  word  of  God  was,  how- 
ever, ly  no  means  produced,  from  the  matter  of  the  prophet's  own  mind_( whether 
viewed  ethically  or  intellectually).  "A  man  can  receive  nothing  except  it  be 
given  him  from  heaven,"  is  the  testimony  of  the  greatest  of  the  prophets  (.John 
iii.  27).  As  an  answer  to  prayer  cannot  be  manufactured,  but  depends  upon 
whether  God  will  permit  Himself  to  be  found  or  not  (Isa.  Iv.  6,  Ps.  xxxii.  6,  etc.), 
and  there  are  even  seasons  when  heaven  seems  closed  against  the  wrestling  in 
prayer  of  God's  servants,  so  a  prophet  might  prepare  himself  for  the  reception  of 
a  revelation,  but  could  neither  extort  it  nor  prescribe  its  matter.  Accordingly  we 
find  that  the  prophets  often  had  to  wait  till  they  received  the  Divine  communica- 
tions, see  Isa.  xxi.  8,  Jer.  xlii.  7  in  its  connection  with  ver.  4  ;  and  that  there 
were  times  (as  remarked,  §  206)  in  which  such  communications  entirely  ceased. — 
The  last-named  point  furnishes  also  a  proof  of  the  untenableness  of  the  naturalistie 
explanation  of  the  prophetic  state.  The  physiologist  Hecker  {JJeber  Visionen, 
1848,  p.  11,  13)  thinks,  for  instance,  that  any  vivid  conception,  whether  true  or 
imaginary,  may,  by  reason  of  continued  nervous  excitement,  be  transformed  into 
a  vision  so  soon  as  it  has  attained  the  requisite  fervor,  and  that  it  is  in  this  way 
that  the  sublimest  ideas  have  been  incorporated  in  the  religions  of  all  nations. 
The  answer  is,  that  there  was  no  lack  either  of  sublime  ideas  or  "  fervor"  in  the 
days  described  Lam.  ii.  9,  Ps.  Ixxiv.  9,  etc.,  and  in  the  times  of  the  Maccabees 
(comp.  §  192),  and  yet  prophecy  was  then  silent  (8). 

(1)  Prophetic  significance  was  also,  in  all  heathen  antiquity,  attributed  to 
dreams,  upon  the  assumption  that  when  the  voluntary  self-determination  of  'man 
ceases,  the  Divine  influence  begins  to  operate  upon  his  soul.  If,  during  sleep, 
when  that  by  which  the  inner  life  of  man  is  governed  and  determined  acts  most 
unrestrainedly,  the  communion  of  the  saints  with  God  takes  place  in  full  eflicacy 
(comp.  especially  Ps.  xvi.  7),  the  soul  Avill  also,  when  in  this  condition,  be  in  a 
state  of  special  recipiency  for  the  influence  of  the  Divine  Spirit  (Job  xxxiii.  14 
sqq.).  [In  Ps.  xvi.  7,  the  phrase  "in  the  night  seasons"  refers  more  probably  to 
the  night  as  favorable  for  quiet  thought,  rather  than  to  sleep. — D.] 

(2)  Zech.  iv.  1  :  "As  a  man  that  is  wakened  out  of  his  sleep."  "The  weak- 
ness of  human  nature,"  says  Hengstenberg  in  his  just  remarks  on  this  passage 
{Christology,  iii.  p.  335),  "  had  asserted  in  his  case  its  incapacity  to  maintain  for 
any  lengthened  period  the  contemplation  of  the  super-sensuous"  (comp.  Luke  ix. 
32).  [Comp.  on  the  question  whether  the  prophets  received  revelation  in  dreams, 
Konig,  ii.  9  sqq.,  whose  conclusions  agree  with  the  position  taken  in  the  text. 
Jer.  xxi.  26,  he  understands  as  saying  that  Jeremiah  received  a  divine  commu- 
nication in  his  sleep,  but  not  in  a  dream  (p.  13-15).  In  Zech.  iv.  1  he  properly 
lays  emphasis  upon  the  fact  that  the  jjrophet  was  wakened,  not  when  he  was 
asleep,  but  as  one  who  slept — i.e.  from  a  state  of  passivity,  of  weakness  and  ex- 
haustion.] 

(3)  A  comparison  of  such  visions  with  the  phenomena  of  magnetic  somnambu- 
lism is  obvious  ;  but  the  greater  the  external  resemblance,the  less  must  the  essen- 
tial difference  between  them,  already  alluded  to  §  209,  be  overlooked,  viz.  that  the 
self-consciousness  of  the  prophet  is  never  lost  in  the  vision  ;  and  that  by  virtue  of 
this  continuity  of  self-consciousness,  the  state  of  revelation  enters  into  active  con- 
nection with  the  ordinary  mental  state  of  the  prophet,  and  exercises  a  decided  and 
lasting  influence  thereon.     Comp.  Ennemoser,  Der  Magnetismus  im  Verhdltniss  zur 


I  212.]     CONCEPTIONS  OF  GENtUS  ANT)  POWERS  OF  DIVINATION.  481 

Natur  uiid  Religion,  pp.  01  and  211.  In  tlio  latter  pass!i<re  the  results  of  the  com- 
parison of  proplictic  with  other  psychical  phenomena  are  summed  up  in  tho 
words,  ''Divine  prophetic  inspiration,  from  whatever  point  of  view  it  may  b(? 
critically  regarded,  is  a  unique  phenomenon."  Visions  of  the  higher  grade  are, 
moreover,  by  no  means  frequent  in  the  Old  Testament. 

(4)  Comp.  e.g.   Ps.  xx.  6  :  "Now  liiow  I  that  the  Lord  saveth  His  anointed," 

(5)  [The  protest  of  Konig  (ii.  197  sqfj.)  against  the  analogy  here  presented,  rests 
partly  upon  his  erroneous  conception  that  an  analogy  between  certain  exjieriences 
of  the  prophets  and  those  of  praying  believers  places  them  on  a  level.,  and  ])artly 
upon  a  different  view  of  the  latter.  For  he  maintains  (p.  200  sq.)  that  "the  so- 
called  certainty  that  a  prayer  is  heard  is  only  the  exhaustion  of  the  soul  in  prayer, 
the  inference  that  the  full  offering  of  humility  and  trust  cannot  fail  of  its  influ- 
ence upon  God"  .  .  ."If  one  who  prays  ever  holds  any  other  view,  we  must 
charge  him  with  religious  aberration."  The  strained  superuaturalism  of  Konig 
here  gives  way,  for  the  sake  of  favoring  his  view  of  the  prophetic  state  as  unique, 
to  a  rationalizing  mode  of  thought.     Comp.,  on  the  other  hand,  Riehm,  p.  20  sq.] 

(6)  The  ethical  element  in  prophecy  is  maintained,  though  with  one-sided  prom- 
inence, against  Hengstenberg  and  Hofmann  by  Diisterdicck,  De  rei  jnvjjheticce  in 
V.  T.  quum  tmiversm  turn  messianai  natura  ethica,  1852. 

(7)  [Konig  (ii.  208)  maintains  that  these  specifications  go  beyond  the  limits  of 
the  prophet's  consciousness,  and  attribute  to  their  individuality  a  positive  concur- 
rence in  the  act  of  revelation,  which  they  themselves  do  not  claim.  But  is  there 
not  in  1  Sam.  iii.  10,  and  in  Isa.  vi.  8,  a  self-dedication  to  the  revealing  God, 
without  any  positive  concuirence  in  the  act  of  revelation?  Even  if,  with  Konig 
and  Hitzig-Steiner,  we  understand  Am.  iii.  3  as  only  an  illustration  of  the 
thought  that  there  is  no  effect  without  a  cause,  and  so  do  away  with  the  evidence, 
from  this  passage,  of  the  ethical  relation  of  the  prophet  to  God,  yet  this  relation 
is  certainly  proved  by  a  series  of  other  prophetical  testimonies,  some  of  which  are 
given  in  the  text.] 

(8)  The  last  days  of  Jerusalem,  before  its  destruction  by  the  Romans,  well 
showed  what  kind  of  prophets  natural  fervor  is  capable  of  breeding,  §  102,  note 
10.  It  is  only  by  acknowledging  revelation  as  a  spontaneous  and  actual  relation 
into  which  God  has  entered  with  the  world,  that  such  revelationless  periods  can 
be  possibly  understood. 

§  312. 

Continuation :  Tlie  Conceptions  of  Genius  and  the  Natural  Powers  of  Divination  (1). 

In  explaining  Old  Testament  prophecy,  the  attempt  has  often  been  made  to  re- 
fer it  to  -prophetic  powers  inherent  in  the  human  mind,  and  manifesting  themselves 
also  in  the  conceptions  of  genius,  whether  of  the  poet,  the  artist,  the  hero,  etc., 
when — "  at  one  time  after  long  reflection  and  by  gradual  development,  at  another 
at  once  and  apparently  without  preparation — some  great  thought  comes  before 
his  soul  with  such  vividness  and  power  that  in  this  moment  of  conception  his 
creative  mind  already  bears  within  it,  in  its  fully  completed  state,  the  work  on 
which  he  may  perhaps  still  have  to  labor  for  years."  (It  is  thus  that  E.  Graf  ex- 
presses himself  concerning  the  several  revelations  of  God,  in  the  Studien  und 
Kritihen,  1859,  No.  2,  p.  272.  Comp.  also  Rothe,  Zur  Dogmatik,  1st  ed.  p.  71,  2d 
ed.  p.  70.)  In  particular  has  a  divining  power,  inherent  in  the  human  mind,  and 
producing  actual  prophecy  ci(i^*jJ^_J<he_j21'oylac_e_^of_scxiptural  revchition,  been 
spoken  of.  This  has  been  done  especially  by  E.  v.  Lasaulx,  in  his  w^ork  Die 
2yrophetische  Kraft  der  menschlichen  Seele  in  Dichtern  und  Denlcrn,  1858  (2)  ;  Avhile 
Ilamann  had  already  ventured  to  declare,  "We  are  all  capable  of  being  prophets." 


482  THE   THEOLOGY   OE   PROPHETISM.  [§  212. 

For  this  theory  a  pijtnin  nmonn^jwrfjTntli  must  be  acknowledged,  even  from  a 
scriptural  standpoint ;  for  the  Old  Testament  (as  was  shown,  §  65)  refers  all  in- 
tellectual endowment  to  a  Divine  spiritual  influence  on  the  mind.  Still  that 
fersonal  and  familiar  relation  in  which  the  prophet  stands  to  God,  which  makes 
him  a  participator  of  the  Divine  counsel,  and  discloses  to  him  secret  things,  Amos 
iii.  7,  Jer.  xxiii.  18,  etc.  (comp.  §  161),  stands  out  as  aomt'.fMng  Kpp.r.l,fi,r.  amid  these 
general  spiritual  influences  (3).  With  regard  to  so-called  natural  divination,  in 
particular,  the  aspect  in  which  this  may  most  allowably  be  compared  with  script- 
ural prophecy  is,  that  it  is  the  prophecy  of  conscience  (4).  For  since  the  God  who 
gives  testimony  to  Himself  in  the  conscience,~and  who  pledges  to  it  a  holy  and 
righteous  government  of  the  world,  and  thus  sharpens  in  every  morally  susceptible 
man  a  perception  of  the  providential  leading  whether  of  individuals  or  nations,  is 
the  same  Being  who  reveals  in  prophecy  the  laws  of  His  moral  government,  the  two 
must  necessarily  coincide  with  each  other  in  essentials  (5).  But  does  this  natural 
divination  know  anything  positively  respecting  the  purposes  of  God's  ways  upon 
earth  ?  Lasaulx  may  call  Scipio's  allusion,  amid  the  ruins  of  Carthage,  to  the 
future  fall  of  Rome,  in  the  words  of  Homer  {Hiad,  IV.  v.  164  sq.),  "  a  genuine 
prophecy  ;"  but  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament  knew  something  inare,  when 
they  proclaimed  that  above  the  ruins  of  all  earthly  power  the  glory  of  the  God  of 
Israel  should  flow  like  the  waves  of  the  sea  (Hab.  ii.  13  sq.),  when  they  beheld 
from  their  corner  of  the  world  the  kingdom  of  God  coming  to  all  nations,  and 
when  Daniel  declared  (ch.  vii.)  that  the  kingdom  of  the  Son  of  man  from 
heaven  should  triumph  over  all  those  secular  powers  which  should  successively 
emerge  from  the  storm-tossed  ocean  of  the  nations  (6).  Besides,  how  does  the 
prophecy  of  conscience  manage  the  enigmas  given  it  to  solve,  by  those  contradic- 
tions of  its  postulates  which  are  presented  by  the  course  of  the  world  ?  (7).  And 
when  Lasaulx,  in  attempting  to  explain  the  prophecy  of  the  Old  Testament, 
further  suggests  the  sympathetic  connection  of  the  individual  human  spirit  with 
the  national  spirit  and  that  of  all  mankind,  we  fully  concede  that  a  nation  may 
produce  individuals  in  whom  the  presentiments  of  the  national  spirit  may  be 
transfigured  into  lucid  thoughts,  and,  under  certain  circumstances,  be  even 
clearly  expressed  in  prophetic  sayings  ;  but  it  is  equally  certain  that  the  prophets 
of  the  Old  Testament  laid  no  claim  to  this  honor.  They  knew  that  the  Spirit  by 
which  they  were  inspired  was  not  the  natural  spirit  of  their  nation  ;  that  their  pre- 
dictions were  not  the  expression  of  popular  expectations.  The  j^ower  of  Old 
Testament  prophecy  was  so  far  from  being  conditioned  upon  the  secular  pros- 
perity of  the  nation,  that  it  was,  on  the  contrary,  in  proportion  as  the  external 
glory  of  Israel  decayed  that  prophecy  unfurled  her  wings  and  proclaimed  upon 
the  grave  of  Israel's  earthly  hopes  the  triumph  of  the  eternal  kingdom  of 
God  (8).  The  prophets  knew  that  the  thoughts  of  God,  of  which  they  were  the 
interpreters,  are  as  high  above  the  thoughts  of  man  as  heaven  is  higher  than 
earth,  Isa.  Iv.  8  sq.  (9). 

This  transcendence  of  revelation  extends  so  far  as  to  become  a  limitation  of 
prophecy  :  for,  as  the  Old  Testament  knows  nothing  of  any  permanent  indwelling  of 
the  Spirit  of  revelation  in  the  pro^jhets,  but  speaks  only  of  a  falling  (Ezek.  xi.  5), 
a  coming  (1  Sam.  x.  6)  of  the  Spirit  upon  or  over  them  ;  so  the  matter  of  revela- 
tion, though  their  free  agency  is  manifested  in  the  form  in  which  they  present  it, 


§  213.]     CONCEPTIONS  OF  GENIUS  AND  POWERS  OF  DIVINATION.  483 

is  not,  strictly  speaking,  the  mcnital  propa-f;/  of  lliu  i)roi)liols,  but  continues  to  be 
a  tiling  imparted.  Hence  its  meaning  was  not  fully  grasped  by  tlieir  understand- 
ing, but  was,  as  St.  Peter  tells  us,  1  Pet.  i.  10,  a  matter  of  investigation  to  them- 
selves (10).  This  accounts  also  for  the  impression,  so  often  received  by  the  atten- 
tive reader  from  the  prophetic  word,  that  it  reaches  further  than  its  inadequate 
form,  and  bears  within  it,  according  to  the  intention  of  the  Spirit,  that  which  far 
surpasses  the  individual  consciousness  of  the  prophet  (11)  (12). 

(1)  Comp.  Ueber  das  Verhdltnlss  der  A.  T,  Projjhetie  ziir  lieidnhclien  Mantih  {ac- 
companying  the  congratulatory  address  of  the  University  of  Tiibingen  to  the 
University  of  Breslau,  1861). 

(2)  The  conclusion  of  this  \vork  is  embraced  in  the  following  propositions  :  "If 
there  is  present  in  every  human  soul  somewhat  of  the  collective  powers  of  the  soul 
of  his  nation  and  of  the  soul  of  all  mankind,  nay,  of  the  soul  of  the  world  ;  and 
if,  in  the  matter  of  prophesying,  as  in  every  great  matter  of  human  life,  the  indi- 
vidual soul  is  immersed  in  the  universal  soul,  in  the  great  and  universal  meaning  of 
nature  and  the  world,  and  is  thence  born  again  with  renovated  powers  ;  it  is  con- 
ceivable that,  as  the  present  is  as  substantially  connected  with  the  future  as  it  is 
with  the  past,  each  individual  soul  may  foresee  not  only  its  own  future,  but  also 
that  of  its  nation,  nay,  of  all  mankind.  From  the  depths  of  the  soul  and  from 
the  creative  power  of  God  therein  arise  all  great  thoughts,  all  that  is  new  or 
extraordinary,  all  that  leads  mankind  toward  its  eternal  destination." 

(3)  Therefore  the  prophet  knows  himself  to  be  taught  of  God  in  quite  another 
manner  from  that  in  which  the  artisan  Bezaleel,  e.g.,  nay,  even  Solomon,  could 
declare  themselves  to  be. 

(4)  Comp.  Beck,  Einleituitg  in  das  Si/stem,  der  Cliristl.  Lehre,  p.  197. 

(5)  The  strength  of  this  natural  divination  lies  in  its  presentiments  of  approach- 
ing Divine  judgments,  in  its  perception  that  a  curse  cleaves  to  all  unexpiated 
guilt,  that  all  power  founded  on  deceit  and  unrighteousness  works  its  own  de- 
struction, and  that  all  earthly  glory  and  greatness  is  destined  to  perish. 

(6)  [Konig  (ii.  p.  202)  remarks,  on  the  other  hand  :  "  This  does  not  appear  to 
me  a  sufficient  answ^er.  Such  expectations  of  a  triumph  of  good  on  the  earth  any 
one  who  believes  in  a  moral  order  of  the  world  might  have."  But,  in  the  first 
place,  a  general  and  indefinite  idea  of  a  final  triumph  of  the  good  is  not  here  at- 
tributed to  prophecy,  but  it  will  be  found,  on  readhig  a  few  lines  further,  that 
evidence  is  given  that  it  looked  to  a  much  more  concrete  aim  of  the  course  of  his- 
tory ;  and  secondly,  we  may  ask  whether  faith  in  a  moral  order  of  the  world 
which  is  sure  of  such  an  issue  of  history,  can  be  or  has  been  formed,  except  under 
the  influence,  directly  or  indirectly,  of  revelation.  And  when  Konig  further  re- 
marks, "What  is  decisive  in  respect  to  the  difl'erence  between  divination  and 
prophecy,  is  not  the  matter,  but  the  form  :  the  prophets  did  not  draw  from  a 
fountain  which  stood  at  the  service  of  «Z/,"  he  docs  not  meet  the  position  taken 
in  the  text,  the  meaning  of  which  is  simply  this,  that  tlie  difference  in  the  matter 
of  prophecy  points  to  a  different  source — in  the  one  case  to  the  human  mind,  in 
the  other  to  the  Spirit  of  God.  Unless  it  can  be  shown  to  those  who  place  proph- 
ecy in  the  same  line  with  natural  divination,  that  the  former  is  superior  in  respect 
to  its  contents,  they  will  not  believe  that  its  declarations  have  any  other  than  a 
human  source  ;  or  they  will  find  a  revelation  through  the  Spirit  of  God  in  the  last 
degree  superfluous,  if  it  offers  nothing  higher  than  human  auguries  and  thoughts.] 

(7)  So  far  as  natural  divination  pointed  to  a  perfect  realization  of  the  idea  of 
moral  excellence  in  man,  it  was  obliged  either  to  give  up  the  attempt  to  show  how 
historically  it  is  to  be  brought  about,  or  to  seek  the  historical  point  of  connection 
within  its  own  horizon  ;  and  the  6ia0i}Kai  -7/c  kTra-}ye?.lac  (Eph.  ii.  12)  with  which 
God  has  connected  the  historical  development  of  Ilis  kingdom  being  outside  of 
this  horizon,  it  must  necessarily  make  mistakes.  Of  the  first  kind  are  theories 
like  Plato's  delineation  of  the  ideal  of  a  just  man,  who,  without  having  done  any- 


484  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    PROPHETISM.  [§  2l3. 

thing  wrong,  appears  to  be  unrighteous  ;  who  is  chained,  scourged,  blinded,  and 
at  last  even  impaled  {Rejy.  ii.  p.  361)  ;  and  of  which  Lasaulx  {id.  p.  23)  says  that 
he  never  in  the  sacred  books  of  the  Jews  met  with  any  more  magnificent  prophecy 
concerning  the  Lord's  holy  and  righteous  One.  (Comp.  also  his  work,  Des  Sok- 
ratea  Leben,  Lehre  unci  Tod,  in  which,  p.  121,  he  ranks  Socrates  among  the  proph- 
ets.) Virgil  is  an  example  of  the  second  kind,  when  in  his  celebrated  4th  Ec- 
logue he  connects  the  return  of  the  Golden  Age  with  the  consulate  of  Pollio  and 
the  birth  of  his  son,  and  then  in  the  ^neid,  as  is  well  known,  sets  up  Augustus 
as  the  bringer  in  of  a  new  age,  but  in  both  cases  combines  the  imjisrkim  sine  fine 
with  Rome  {JEn.  i.  ver.  278). 

(8)  What  a  struggle  takes  place  in  such  cases  between  faith  in  providence  and 
a  lurking  belief  that  the  world  is  governed  by  a  fate  in  which  there  is  no  moral 
element  !     (See  §  8,  note  2.) 

(9)  This  point  is  calculated  to  show  the  contrast  between  Old  Testament  rev- 
elation and  heathen  manticism.  The  religious  importance  of  manticism,  like  the 
power  of  ancient  heathenism  in  general,  rises  and  falls  with  the  national  life. 
The  power  of  the  oracles  was  broken  with  that  of  Hellenistic  nationality  ;  they 
were,  as  Plutarch  testifies,  no  longer  consulted  on  the  more  important  occasions, 
but  only  on  trifling  matters,  such  as  whether  a  marriage  should  be  contracted,  a 
voyage  undertaken,  whether  corn  and  hay  would  yield  well,  etc.  ;  which  circum- 
stance Plutarch  adduces  among  others  to  explain  why  in  his  days  the  Pythia  had 
ceased  to  give  her  answers  in  verses  {de  Pyth.  orac.  cap.  28,  comp.  with  d,e  defectu 
orac.  cap.  7).  But  even  for  a  Julian,  Apollo  had  no  longer  an  answer  in  readi- 
ness. 

(10)  Comp.  also  what  has  been  already  said,  §  5,  note  1,  against  the  derivation  of 
the  Old  Testament  religion  from  the  natural  peculiarities  of  the  Israelitish  people. 

(11)  This  relation  of  the  subjectivity  of  the  prophet  to  the  revelation  is  so  ex- 
plained, from  the  Hegelian  standpoint,  that  in  the  Old  Testament  the  identity  of 
the  finite  and  the  infinite  subjectivity  has  not  yet  been  infinitely  brought  to  pass, 
but  is  only  a  direct  one  ;  which  way  of  direct  union  did  not  suffer  the  two  equally 
to  attain  their  right,  when  they  would  have  obliterated  each  other  in  the  con- 
crete spirituality  (see  Vatke,  die  Religion  des  A.  T.  p.  624  sq.).  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  we  put  in  the  place  of  the  logical  process  the  historical  development  of 
revelation,  as  exhibited  in  Scripture,  the  result  will  be  as  stated  §  204  in  this  re- 
spect. 

(12)  The  importance  of  the  propositions  thus  far  developed  will  more  clearly 
appear  in  the  discussion  of  the  nature  of  prophecy,  to  which  we  now  proceed. 


SECOND    SUBDIVISION. 
OF  PROPHECY  (1). 

§  213. 

Its  Office  in  General. 

In  the  usual  definition  of  prophecy  formerly  given,  it  was  said  to  be  the  predic- 
tion, by  means  of  Divine  revelation,  of  any  occurrence  which  was  contingent,  and 
therefore  not  to  be  foreknown  by  human  wisdom  (2).  This  definition  is  in  every 
respect  inadequate.  According  to  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy  xviii.  9-22,  discussed 
§§  97  and  161,  prophecy  is  said  to  secure  to  the  people  that  which  heathenism  in 
vain  sought  to  furnish  by  its  manticism.  Now  even  heathen  manticism  would  not  be 
correctly  appreciated,  if  regarded  merely  as  a  means  of  inquiring  into  future  con- 
tingent matters,  and  consequently  as  a  means  of  satisfying  human  curiosity  ;  that 


§  213.]  OF    PROPHECY  :    ITS    OFFIOE    IN    GENERAL.  485 

is  to  say,  if  its  religious  element  is  made  to  consist  only  in  the  suiiplementary 
assistance  of  the  Deity  in  those  matters  for  which  human  reason  and  wisdom  are 
insufficient  (3).  Manticism  originates  rather  in  the  inalienable  craving  of  the 
liuman  sjjint  to  know  itself  in  active  communion  and  to  maintain  a  constant  in- 
tercourse with  Deity,  and  in  the  belief  that  God  has  not  forsaken  men,  but  makes 
tlieir  actions  and  all  that  befalls  them  the  object  of  His  care,  and  will  for  this 
reason  manifest  Himself  unto  them.  What  Manticism  sought  was  to  make  known 
to  man  the  will  and  counsel  of  God  in  all  the  imi^ortant  events  of  life  ;  to  give 
liim  information,  especially  at  critical  seasons,  how  to  do  what  was  right  and 
l>leasing  to  God  (4).  Such  an  intetyretatio  divma  voluntatis  as  heathenism  in  vain 
endeavored  to  furnish,  the  word  of  prophecy  afforded. 

How  far,  no7c,  does  the  annoimcement  of  the  Divine  will  made  ly  -profhecy,  extend? 
That  the  prophets  were  applied  to  for  disclosures  even  in  matters  of  ordinary  life, 
is  shown  by  such  narratives  as  1  Sam.  ix.  6  sqq.  (5)  ;  1  Kings  xiv.  1  sqq.  ;  2  Kings 
i.  3,  and  the  well-known  occurrences  in  the  history  of  Elisha.  In  the  first  place, 
however,  the  Old  Testament  strictly  insists  that  they  who  on_aTiyLjiccasion^seek_a 
prophetic  answer^from_God  must  earnestly  seek  Him  and  walk  in  His  ways  (6). 
The  chief  passage  on  this  subject  is^zek.  xiv.  1-20,  comp.  with  xx.  1-4.  The 
prophet  is  not  to  be  at  the  beck  of  the  elders  of  Israel,  who  inquire  of  the 
Lord  with  the  mouth  while  they  have  set  up  their  idols  in  their  heart,  but  is 
rather  to  reprove  their  ungodliness.  God  will  not  be  inquired  of  by  a  rebellious 
generation,  because  prophecy  is  not  to  be  degraded  into  a  plaything  and  an  ob- 
ject of  frivolous  curiosity.  In  the  second  'place,  this  condescension  to 'the  ordinary 
requirements  of  the  people,  which  was  to  enable  them  to  dispense  with  seeking 
counsel  from  heathen  soothsayers  (7),  is  an  element  kept  quite  in  the  background 
in  prophecy  (8).  On  the  whole,  prophecy  was  designed  to  educate  the  nation  to 
a  perception  of  what  kind  of  knowledge  of  the  future  could  alone  be  a  blessing  to 
man,  by  opening  its  eyes  to  the  holy  government  of  God  in  history  and  to  the 
aims  of  Divine  providence,  that  thus  it  might  learn  to  prepare  for  coming  judg- 
ments (comp.  passages  such  as  Amos  iv.  13,  etc.),  and,  walking  in  the  light  of  its 
own  calling  to  salvation,  and  of  the  great  future  which  this  involved,  might  re- 
gard it  as  beneath  its  dignity  to  yield  to  the  yearning  for  soothsaying  ;  comp.  as 
chief  passages,  Isa.  ii.  5  sq.  in  connection  with  vers.  1-4.  If,  then,  w^e  regard  the 
collective  contents  of  the  prophetic  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  we  must  say  that 
prophecy  is  employed  entirely  in  promoting  tlte  interests  of  the  l'in(jdom  of  God, 
and  that  its  mam  "Office  is  to  imfold  its  ways.  In  saying  this,  we  have  not,  how- 
ever, as  yet  answered  the  question  whether  propli«cy  as  such  is  a  lyrediction  of  in- 
dividual occurrences,  and  if  so,  what  are  its  characteristics,  and  how  is  it  related 
to  its  fulfilment?  (9). 

(1)  [On  this  whole  subject,  comp.  Riehm,  Messianic  Prophecy,  its  origin,  his- 
torical character,  and  relation  to  the  New  Testament  fulfilment,  1875.] 

(2)  So  e.^.  Vitringa,  Tyfus  doctrince  prophetica;,  p.  2:  "  Prophetia  est  pradictio 
casus  aut  eventus  contingentis  futuri  temijoris  ex  rctelatione  divina,''^  wliich  thus  ex- 
cludes irom  proi^hecj  a\\  cventns  necessarii,  such  as  the  succession  of  day  and  night, 
the  ebb  and  flow  of  the  tide,  etc.,  and  on  the  other  hand  designates  hominum 
volitiojies  et  actiones  libera',  earumque  consequent ia,  as  its  verum  ac  pi-oprium  ohjectum, 
a  remarkable  definition,  according  to  which  those  Divine  counsels  which  are  in- 
dependent of  human  freedom  could  not  be  the  object  of  prophecy. 


486  THE  THEOLOGY   OP   PROPflETISM.  [§  214. 

(3)  Comp.  my  essay  "On  the  relation  of  O.  T.  prophecy  to  the  heathen  man- 
ticism."  This  view  of  manticism  is  only  suitable  to  the  times  of  its  decadence, 
when  it  had  become  with  some,  an  empty  form  maintained  only  for  political 
objects  ;  with  others,  a  superstition  subserving  only  the  most  insignificant  purposes 
of  daily  life,  and  estranged  from  all  higher  aims  ;  and  when  even  the  Stoics,  in 
their  philosophical  justification  of  manticism,  only  attempted  to  assert  for  it 
an  essentially  theoretical  interest,  viz.  that  it  might  in  individual  cases  disclose 
to  human  apprehension  that  unchangeable  causality  of  things  which  has  its 
foundation  in  the  eternal  law  of  fate  (see  Wachsmuth,  Bie  Ansichten  der  Stoiker 
uber  Mantik  unci  Ddmonen,  1800,  especially  p.  33  sqq.). 

(4)  Man  longs  for  the  Divine  consent,  for  the  assurance  of  the  Divine  blessing, 
even  when  a  resolution  has  been  formed  after  mature  deliberation  ;  or,  when 
threatening  premonitions  of  Divine  judgments  appear,  he  desires  to  learn  from 
the  Deity  Himself  the  means  of  expiation,  and  of  deliverance  from  the  curse  rest- 
ing upon  him. 

(5)  To  be  sure,  the  passage  1  Sam.  ix.  6  sqq.  leaves  it  uncertain  whether  Samuel 
would,  under  other  circumstances,  have  given  information  concerning  the  lost 
asses.  Still  the  parenthetical  note  ver.  9  is  a  j^roof  that  the  prophets  might  be 
consulted  on  such  matters. 

(6)  Saul,  after  being  rejected,  obtained  in  his  helpless  condition  no  other 
answer  from  God  than  one  of  judgment,  1  Sam.  xxviii.  6  ;  so,  too,  the  wife  of 
Jeroboam,  when  consulting  the  prophet  Ahijah  concerning  her  sick  child,  received, 
besides  the  unwished-for  disclosure,  a  stern  rebuke,  1  Kings  xiv.  6-16. 

(7)  Comp.  Origen,  c.  Gels.  i.  354  ;  Redepenning,  Origenes,  i.  p.  387. 

(8)  We  have  herein,  as  H.  Schultz  {Oottinger  gel.  Am.  1863,  p.  330)  justly  re- 
marks, a  testimony  "  how  Divine  revelation  so  adapted  itself  to  the  natural  soil  of 
human  manners  and  customs,  as  not  on  every  occasion  instantly  to  reject  what 
was  out  of  harmony  with  it,  but  allowed  it  to  perish  gradually,  in  virtue  of  its 
own  vanity,  in  presence  of  the  Divine." 

(9)  On  the  history  of  different  views  of  prophecy,  and  the  course  of  its  treat- 
ment in  Patristic  and  Protestant  theology,  see  the  article  in  Herzog,  xvii.  p.  644 
sqq.  [Also  the  parts  pertaining  to  this  subject  in  Diestel's  GescMchte  des  A.  T. 
in  der  ChristUchen  KircJie,  1869  ;  Orelli,  §  9,  and  Bohl,  Ghristologie  des  A.  T.  §  4  ; 
the  position  of  the  latter  writer  is  conservative,  and  agrees  with  the  older  views,] 

§214. 

The  Prediction  of  Particular  Events  an  Essential  Element  of  PropTiecy. 

According  to  the  theory  of  some,  the  sole  essential  feature  of  prophecy  is  de- 
clared to  be  its  expression  of  the  general  ideas  of  the  Divine  government ;  while  its 
prediction  of  particular  events  is,  on  the  other  hand,  to  be  regarded  as  comparatively 
unessential  and  subordinate  ;  so  especially  Hengstenberg,  in  his  article  on  the  ex- 
position of  the  prophets,  in  the  Evangel.  Kirchemeitung ,  1838,  No.  33  sq.  (1)  ;  nay, 
the  very  admissibility  of  prediction  is  denied  by  the  rationalistic  party,  on  the  ground 
of  its  destroying  human  freedom  and  interfering  with  history.  The  latter  propo- 
sition, indeed,  if  laid  down  as  universal,  would  lead  to  a  view  of  the  world  deci- 
dedly unreasonable,  and  at  any  rate  unscriptural.  For  what  kind  of  "a  course  of  the 
■world  would  that  be,  which  should  be  dependent  in  its  chief  elements  solely  upon 
the  accidental  decisions  of  the  human  will  ?  Old  Testament  theology,  however, 
has  to  do  only  with  the  question  whether  prophecy  does  or  does  not  attribute  to  itself 
as  essential  the  characteristic  of  predicting  particular  events  (8)  ;  and  in  this  respect 
it  may  suffice  to  bring  forward,  besides  the  fundamental  passage  Deut.  xviii.  23, 
the  very  decided  expressions  contained  on  this  subject  in  the  prophetical  book 


§  214.]       PREDICTION-   AN   ESSENTIAL   ELEMENT   OP   PROPHEOT.  4S7 

Isa.  xl.  sqq.  Here  wc  find  tlic  grcatost  cinjjliasis  laid  upon  the  circunistunces 
tliat  tlie  deliverance  of  Israel  from  tiie  Babylonian  captivity  had  been  long  pre- 
dicted by  prophecy,  and  that  the  prophet  now  speaking  foretells  the  appearance 
of  Cyrus  before  it  takes  place.  It  maintains  also  that  the  prediction  of  such  par- 
ticular events  is  a  proof  that  the  God  of  Israel  is  the  true  God,  while  on  the  other 
hand  it  asserts  that  the  vanity  of  the  heathen  gods  is  manifested  by  their  inability 
to  foretell  anything  ;  see  xli.  31-28,  xlii.  9.  When  it  is  said  in  the  latter  passage, 
"New  things  do  I  declare  :  lefore  they  spring  forth  I  tell  you  of  them,"  the 
idea  of  pure  prediction  could  hardly  be  more  precisely  expressed  ;  comp.  also 
xliii.  9-13,  xliv.  25  sq.,  xlv.  21.  The  unbelief  of  the  people  is  represented, 
xlviii.  3,  as  without  excuse,  for  the  very  reason  that  the  predictions  of  the  prophets 
were  authenticated  by  their  fulfilment.  And  when  it  is  said,  ver.  7,  "They  are 
created  now,  and  not  from  the  beginning,  even  before  the  day  when  thou  heardest 
them  not  ;  lest  thou  shouldest  say,  Behold,  I  knew  them,"  prophecy  is  here  very 
decidedly  distinguished  from  a  mere  calculation  of  what  the  present  might  further 
develop. 

But  while,  in  accordance  with  the  declarations  of  the  Old  Testament,  we  claim 
for  jirophecy  the  characteristic  of  prediction,  we  ly  no  means  assert  the  complete 
identity  of  tlis  prediction  with  its  fulfilment.  Against  such  a  supernaturalistic  view 
of  prophecy,  as  regards  it,  so  to  speak,  as  only  the  mirrored  reliection,  cast  back- 
ward from  the  future,  of  New  Testament  personages  and  occurrences,  it  is  very 
easy  to  contend,  and  to  show  how  very  differently  the  Old  Testament  prophecies 
would  have  run  if  they  had  been  of  this  nature.  The  inalienable  connection  of 
the  words  of  revelation  w^ith  its  facts,  and  therewith  the  genuine  historical  nature 
of  revelation,  would  be  annulled,  nay,  the  pre-eminence  belonging  to  the  New 
Testament  itself  be  lost,  if  a  substantially  complete  representation  of  New  Testa- 
ment redemption  were  already  placed  before  us  in  Old  Testament  prophecy.  A 
closer  investigation  of  the  peculiarities  of  the  latter  enables  us  to  discern  also  the 
limits  prescribed  to  it,  and  the  incompleteness  pertaining  to  it,!  In  discussing  this 
point,  we  shall  proceed  from  what  was  stated  in  the  first  subdivision  concerning 
the  prophetic  consciousness. 

(1)  According  to  Hengstenberg,  no  prophecy  refers  solely  to  any  special  case. 
*'  Such  exposition  may  be  serviceable  to  apologetics  ;  but  apologetics  is  only  for 
the  few,  and  not  of  sufficient  imjiortance  even  to  them,  for  God  to  have  done  so 
much  in  this  respect."  If  prophecy  seems  to  foretell  any  special  case,  it  is  merely 
the  most  obvious  realization  of  the  idea  in  an  object.  Everything  in  prophecy 
applies  to  the  one  church  of  God  existing  in  uninterrupted  continuity  throughout 
the  ages.  Within  us  and  witliout  us,  we  again  find  Israel,  Edom,  and  Babylon. 
Nothing  any  longer  appears  to  us  merely  past,  nothing  merely  future  ;  but  all 
equally  past,  present,  and  future,  as  cannot  but  be  the  case  with  the  word  of  the 
eternal  God.  The  temporal  and  local  definiteness  of  individual  fulfilments  is 
simply  incidental.  If,  nevertheless,  we  are  obliged  to  own  that  some  predictions 
are  special  and  historically  characteristic,  these  appear  merely  as  concessions  to 
the  weak  faith  of  the  church. — That  the  influence  of  Schleiermacher's  doctrine  is, 
as  has  been  remarked,  perceptible  in  the  turn  here  taken  by  Ilengstenberg's  theory 
of  prophecy,  is  possible  so  far  as  this— that  Schleiermacher  {Dcr  christliche  Glauhe, 
§  103.  3)  regards  as  the  essential  element  of  prophecy,  not  a  prediction  relating 
to  particulars,  to  which  now  a  less  now  a  higher  degree  of  correctness  pertains, 
but  the  manifestation  of  general  principles.  There  is,  however,  this  dillerenco 
between  the  two,   that  Schleiermacher  sees  in  the  ideas  of  Divine  election  and 


488  THE  THEOLOGY  OP   PROPHETISM.  [§  215. 

retribution  by  which  prophecy  is  pervaded,  only  "  Jewish  notions,"  and  finds  tlie 
Messianic  element  of  prophecy  in  the  fact  that  it  expresses  the  future  of  the  Sent 
of  God  in  a  manner  which,  rightly  understood,  involves  the  "  termination  of  these 
two  Jewish  ideas  ;"  while  Hengstenberg,  on  the  contrary,  acknowledges,  as  has 
been  said,  in  the  prophetic  ideas^after,  indeed,  divesting  them  of  their  particu- 
lar definiteness — the  eternal  laws  of  God's  government  of  the  world  and  the 
church.  And  w4io  can  deny  to  Hengstenberg  the  special  merit  of  having,  by  thus 
giving  prominence  to  the  enduring  value  of  prophecy,  again  set  up  that  prophetic 
word,  which  had  long  lain  under  a  bushel,  as  a  light  to  enable  us  to  understand  the 
ways  of  God,  and  of  having  again  rendered  accessible  to  many,  the  treasures  of 
instruction  and  consolation  contained  therein  for  all  ages  of  the  church  militant  ? 
(2)  Comp.  Bleek,  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  ii.  p.  23  ;  Orelli,  p.  32  sq., 
59  sq. ;  Konig  ii.  §  27,  especially  p.  291  sqq.,  318  sqq. 

§  215. 

The  Peculiarities  of  Old  Testament  Profheey  (1). 

1.  The  matter  of  revelation  being  given  to  the  prophets  in  the  form  of  intuition 
(§  210),  the  future  appeared  to  them  as  immediately  ]-tresent,  complete,  or  at  all 
events  in  progress.  Hence  the  frequent  use  of  the  so-called  Prceterifum  pro2'>heti- 
cum,  by  the  misunderstanding  of  which,  prediction  has  so  often  been  taken  as  a 
description  of  the  past  ;  comp.  e.g.  Isa.  ix.  1,  5  (2).  How  great  soever  the 
distance,  according  to  human  computation,  of  the  things  predicted,  they  are 
actually  in  train  to  the  prophetic  eye,  and  all  that  intervenes  can  only  help  to 
hasten  their  fulfilment.  See  as  a  chief  passage,  Hab.  ii.  3  :  "  The  vision  is  yet 
for  an  appointed  time,  but  it  hastens  to  its  end,  and  lies  not ;  though  it  tarry, 
wait  for  it,  for  it  will  surely  come,  it  will  not  tarry."  What  the  prophet  sees  are, 
as  they  are  called  Rev.  i.  1,  simply  things  a  JeZ  jEveadai  kv  raxei  :  for  in  the  invisi- 
ble world  which  is  disclosed  to  the  prophet,  all  is  active,  in  motion,  about  to 
approach.— Connected  with  this  peculiarity  of  prophecy  is  the  circumstance  that 
it  gives  for  the  most  ])art  only  a  subordinate  importance  to  dates — for  the  most  part, 
we  say,  for  there  are  certainly  cases  where  great  emphasis  is  laid  upon  them,  as 
e.g.  Ezek.  xii.,  where  the  prophet  announces  to  those  who  inconsiderately  derided 
the  predicted  judgments  because  their  fulfilment  was  delayed,  that  this  fulfilment 
should  shortly  take  place  ;  while  on  the  other  hand  we  find  some  cases,  e.g. 
Dan.  X.  14,  where  the  vision  points  to  a  more  remote  time.  Sometimes  the  dates 
given  have  evidently  a  symbolical  meaning,  and  must  not  for  this  reason  be  pressed 
to  the  very  letter.  Such  are  the  seventy  years  of  Tyre,  "  according  to  the  days 
of  one  king,"  Isa.  xxiii.  15,  17  ;  the  seventy  years,  Jer.  xxv.  ;  the  seventy  weeks 
of  Daniel,  ch.  ix.  Such  dates,  too,  as  those  of  Isa.  xvi.  14,  xxi.  16,  may  be  in- 
cluded. In  general,  however,  the  word  of  the  Lord,  Acts  i.  7  :  ohx  i'fiibv  tan  yvuvai 
Xp6vovr  f/  Kaipovc,  ovg  6  KaT?)p  eOeto  kv  ry  ISia  k^ovaia,  applies  also  to  the  prophets, 
who  limit  themselves  to  indefinite  dates,  such  as  :  in  that  day  (i<=inn  UV2)  ;  after 
this  (p  "inX),  etc.  The  grouping  of  that  which  is  predicted  according  to  the  necessary 
sequences  of  its  essential  elements  takes  the  place  of  chronological  statements.  And 
this  is  effected  in  the  following  manner  :  While  heathenism  can  attain  to  no 
knowledge  of  the  issue  of  its  history,  it  is  essential  to  Old  Testament  prophecy 
to  be  always  directed  to  the  consummation  of  tlie  hingdom  of  God,  by  announcing 
the  ways  in  which  God  conducts  Ms  pwyose  of  salvation,  from  the  actual  present  to  its 


§  215.]        THE   PECULIARITIES   OF  OLD   TESTAMENT   PROPHECY.  489 

appointed  end.     In  other  words,  what  takes  place  D'P^n  n'''iriJ<3  forms  the  bound- 
ary of  the  prophetic  horizon.     This  expression  does  not  signify,  as  it  has  often 
been  explained,"  "  in  the  time  to  come,"  "  in  the  future,"  but  (^'"'.D^  signifying, 
in  contrast  to  ri'E/K"),  that  to  which  anything  runs)  "  at  the  end  of  the  days,"  i.e. 
at  the  close  of  this  dispensation,  as  correctly  rendered  by  the  LXX  by  iv  Toiq 
mxdraic  ^/xepaic,  or  ett'  Ecxarov  (kaxaruv)  tuv  ^/lepuv.     It  is  true  that  the  meaning  is 
a  relative  one.     In  Gen.  xlix.  1,  where  the  expression  first  occurs,  it  refers  to  the 
time  of  the  settlement  of  the  tribes  in  the  promised  land  ;  for  the  final  fulfilment 
of  the  Divine  promise  is  thus  made  the  standpoint  of  Jacob's  blessing.     In  Deut. 
iv.  30.  it  denotes  the  time  which  forms  the  turning-point  for  the  restoration  of 
Israel ;  while  in  xxxi.  29,  on  the  contrary,  the  rejection  of  Israel  is  itself  reckoned 
to  pertain  to  the  ^'"10|!*.     But  in  prophetic  diction,  properly  so  called,  ^^'''l.nK  is, 
as  has  been  said,  the  time  of  the  consummation  of  redemption  (Hos.  iii.  5,  Isa.  ii. 
3,  with  Mic.  iv.  1,  Jer.  xlviii.  47,  Ezek.  xxxviii.  16).     The  event  next  preceding 
this  r\'"inK  is  judgment,  and  indeed  judgment  both  upon  the  rebellious  people  of 
God  and  the  sinful  world.     This  judgment  is  directly  connected  with  the  days  in 
which  the  prophet  lives,  for  these,  because  of  the  sins  of  Israel  and  the  Gentile 
nations,  already  bear  in  their  bosom  the  judgments  of  God.     Thus  the  matter  of  \ 
prophecy  may  be  defined  by  its  three  elements, — (fiiilt,  judgment  (first  upon  the  I 
house  oFuod,  then  upon  the  world),  redemption,.     The  progress  of  the  kingdom  I 
of  God  forms  itself,  in  prophetic  vision,  into  a  i:)icture  in  which  judgment  gener- 
ally forms  the  foreground  and  redemption  the  background.      In  the  Book  of 
Isaiah,  xl.  sqq.,  on  the  other  hand,  redemption  occupies  the  foreground,  but  still 
in  such  wise  that  its  blessings  are  depicted  as  not  unaccompanied  by  judgment. 
The  contemplation  of  impending  judgments,  then,  usually  extends  to  that  of  the 
last  judgment,  as  e.g.  in  the  Book  of  Joel,  where  the  description  of  the  devasta- 
tion by  locusts,  with  which  Judah  is  chastised,  is  enlarged  into  a  description  of 
the  coming  of  the  last  day  (the  day  of  the  Lord),  the  final  judgment,  which, 
however,  on  Judah's  repentance,  is,  though  invoked  upon  her,  inflicted  upon  the 
secular  powers  ;  and  as  in  New  Testament  prophecy  also  (Matt,  xxiv.),  the  judg- 
ment upon  the  world  is  placed  in  direct  connection  with  that  upon  Jerusalem, 
So,  too,  the  contemplation  of  approaching  deliverance  is  usually  extended  to  take 
in  the   consummation   of  redemption,    as   e.g.    Isa.   vii.-xii.    proceeds   from    an 
announcement  of  deliverance  from  Assyria,  to  a  prophecy  of  Messianic  blessings. 
Thus  prophecy  beholds  in  every  event  the  coming  of  the  Judge  and   Saviour  of 
the  world  to  set  up  His  kingdom.     In  this  combination  of  the  nearer  and  more 
distant  future — in  this  placing  of  the  present  government  of  God's  kingdom  in 
the  light  of  the  end— lies  v.  hat  has  been  called  the  perspective  character  of  proph- 
ccY.  as_  Bcngel  in  particular^ in  his  Gnomon  on  Matt.   xxiv.  29,  has  so  aptly 
designated  it  (3).      This^characteristic  of  prophecy  is  manifested  with  especial 
beauty  in  the  Book  of  Isaiah,  xl.-lxvi.     The  Divine  act  of  delivering  the  people 
from  the  Babylonian  captivity,  and  their  restoration  to  the  promised  land,  form, 
with  the  Messianic  redemption  and  the  admission  of  all  nations  into  the  kingdom 
of  God,  one  great  connected  picture,  closing  with  the  creation  of  the  new  heavens 
and  the  new  earth  (4).     To  the  prophets  themselves,  moreover,  the  time  when 
their  predictions  should  be  fulfilled  was,  as  we  are  told  1  Pet.  i.  11,  a  subject  of 
investigation. 


490  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    PKOPHETISM.  [§  21G. 

■  2.  The  fact  that  the  matter  of  prophecy  is  given  in  the  form  of  such  an  intui- 
tion, also  furnishes  the  reason  why  it  always  scesjhe  realization  of  that  matter  in 
particular  events  ichich  are  complete  in  themselves.  Thus  in  Joel,  ch.  iii.,  the  out- 
pouring of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  people  of  God  is  conceived  of  as  a  single  act 
amid  tremendous  natural  phenomena,  and  so  also  the  judgment  of  the  world  is 
mostly  represented  as  a  single  act  of  judgment  against  the  secular  power  at  the 
moment  present  to  the  mind  of  the  prophet.  In  ih.Q  fulfilment,  on  the  contrary, 
that  which  is  but  momentary  in  the  prophetic  intuition  is  accomplished  by  a 
|)rocess  of  long  and  gradual  development  (5)  ;  and  when  a  prediction  attains  its 
first  stage~~of  fulfilment,  there  opens  out  from  the  standpoint  of  subsequent 
prophets,  in  virtue  of  that  law  of  dilation,  as  Ebrard  in  his  Commentary  on  Hebrews 
calls  it,  a  new  perspective  toward  the  consummation  of  judgment  and  redemption. 
Hence  it  is  that  many  expositors  speak  of  a  two,  a  three,  or  even  a  fourfold  ful- 
filment. 

(1)  [On  this  and  the  following  section,  comp.  Orelli,  §  47  ;  Konig,  ii.,  §  27,  ap- 
pendix, also  p.  367  sqq.]  ,  . 

(2)  Isa.  ix.  2  :  "The  people  that  walked  in  darkness,  ^nj  "I1K  !|S"J."     Ver.  6 

says  of  the  birth  of  the  Messiah  :  Ij'?""'^-  "*%?••  \  ^"^^^  this  has  been  said  to  mean 
Hezekiah,  then  twelve  years  of  age,  as  the  destined  deliverer  of  the  people. 

(3)  Bengel  says,  id.  :  Prophetia  est  ut  pictura  regionis  cujuspiam,  quce.  in  piroximo 
tecta  etcolles  et  pontes  notat  distincte,  procul  valles  et  montes  latissvme patentes  in  an- 
gustum  cogit.  Velthusen  contributes  much  good  matter  on  this  point  in  the 
article  De  optica  rerum  futurarum  descriptione,  in  the  Commentationes  theologicos  of 
Velthusen,  Kuinoel,  and  Ruperti,  vi.  1799,  p.  75  sqq. 

(4)  The  view  of  a  perspective  character  in  prophecy  is  not  refuted  by  what 
Steudel  has  advanced  against  it,  in  his  article  on  the  interpretation  of  the  prophets 
in  the  Tiibinger  Zeitschr.  1834,  p.  121  sqq. 

(5)  Compare  what  is  said  (§  221)  on  the  description  of  the  judgment  of  the 
world  in  Amos,  compared  with  that  in  Joel. 

§316. 

Continuation. 

8.  Since  the  matter  of  prophecy  presents  itself  to  view  as  a  multitude  of  indi- 
vidual facts,  it  may  sometimes  appear  as  though  single  predictions  contradicted 
each  other,  when  they  are  in  fact  only  those  parts  into  which  the  ideas  revealed  have 
teen  separated,  mutually  completing  each  other.  Thus  e.g.,  the  representation  of  the 
Messiah  is  at  one  time  that  of  the  gentle  Prince  of  Peace,  at  another  that  of  a 
j)owerful  and  warlike  hero  who  overthrows  His  enemies  ;  on  the  one  side  a  success- 
ful ruler,  on  the  other  the  servant  of  God  who  atones  for  the  sins  of  the  people  by 
imdergoing  death.  On  the  part  of  the  prophets  themselves,  even  when  they  unite 
such  discrepant  features,  the  union,  as  the  nature  of  an  intuition  involves,  is  merely 
one  of  external  juxtaposition.  The  two  characteristics,  e.g.,  of  the  Messianic  age, 
that  therein  the  kingdom  of  God  should  triumph  over  all  enemies,  and  that  never- 
theless it  should  be  a  period  of  universal  peace,  are  thus  united,  Mic.  v.  3-10  : 
the  Messiah  is  great,  even  to  the  ends  of  the  earth  ;  He  feeds  His  people.  He  is  the 
peace.  When,  however,  the  Assyrian  (the  hostile  secular  power,  according  to 
the  prophet's  horizon)  sliould   invade  tlic  land,  the  war  should   l>c  transferred  to 


§216.]        THE    PECULIARITIES    OF   OLD   TESTAAIENT    PROPHECY.  491 

his  own  country  by  a  number  of  generals,  the  enemies  of  Israel  exterminated,  etc. 
The  internal  harmony  of  the  two  views— that  Christ  is  our  peace  and  at  the 
same  time  one  who  lias  come  to  send  a  sword,  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  at 
once  a  contending  and  a  peaceful  kingdom— is  first  found  in  the  New  Testament. 
The  fact  that  Old  Testament  propliocy  continues  to  behold  the  particular  as 
particular,  is  most  clearly  shown  by  the  two  parallel  lines  on  which  it  advances, 
and  according  to  which,  while  the  promised  redemption  is  made  on  the  one 
hand  to  depend  upon  the  coming  of  Jehovah  Himself  to  His  holy  temple  to  set  up 
His  kingdom  on  Zion,  it  is  connected  on  the  other  with  the'  birth  of  the  great 
Branch  of  David,  to  whom  God  will  give  in  its  full  glory  tlie  kingdom  of  His  an- 
cestors (1).  Both  views  are  fulfilled  in  the  gki'ivuck:  of  the  eternal  Uyo^  in  the 
Son  of  David,  in  which  respect  Paul's  statement,  in  2  Cor.  i.  20,  that  all  the 
promises  of  God  are  yea  and  amen,  and  are  harmoniously  fulfilled  in  Him,  holds 
good,  while  the  knowledge  of  individual  prophets  still  continues  but  fragment- 
ary (1  Cor.  xiii.  9).     [Comp.  also  Heb.  i.  1.] 

4.  The  matter  of  prophecy  being  given  to  the  proiDhets  in  the  form  of  intuition, 
it  is  hrought  down,  so  far  as  its  form  is  concerned,  to  the  plane  of  the  leholder 
himself  ;  hence  prophecy  is  a'ltected  by  the  limits  of  the  sphere  of  Old  Testa- 
ment life,  the  special  relations  of  the  age,  and  the  individual  peculiarity  of  the 
prophet.  The  future  Mngdom  of  God  is  beheld  by  the  prophets  as  being  in  all 
essential  matters  an  extended  and  glorified  form  of  the  Old  Testament  theocracy. 
The  admission  of  the  nations  into  this  kingdom  is  their  travelling  to  Mount  Zion 
(Isa.  ii.),  their  attainment  of  rights  of  citi::enship  in  Jerusalem,  Ps.  Ixxxvii., 
etc.  (2)  ;  the  hostile  world  is  personified,  in  the  proi^hetic  intuition,  in  Assyria, 
Egypt,  Babylon,  Moab,  Edom,  etc.,  who  were  then  the  enemies  of  Israel.  This, 
which  has  been  called  the  Old  Testament  outer  covering  of  prophecy,  is  incor- 
rectly regarded,  especially  by  Hengstenberg,  as  a  merely  symbolical  covering  in 
the  co7isciousness  of  the  prophets  themselves.  A  consciously  symbolical  diction  is 
indeed  frequently  used  by  the  prophets,  as  by  other  authors.  In  many  cases 
there  may  also  be  in  the  prophets  a  conscious  fluctuation  between  symbolical  and 
literal  language  ;  nay,  it  is  often  evident  how  superior  is  the  fulness  of  the  idea, 
how  far  the  Divine  matter  surpasses  its  limited  form.  One  may  often  feel,  when 
heading  the  prophetic  word,  how  much  further  the  spiritual  meaning  reaches  than 
the  letter  expresses  ;  how  prophecy  struggles,  as  it  were,  to  give  its  thoughts  an 
adequate  embodiment.  Compare  such  descriptions  as  Zech.  ii.  and  similar  pas- 
sages (3).  Generally  speaking,  however,  the  prophets,  when  beholding  the  future 
state  of  God's  kingdom  m  an  Old  Testament  form,  mean  just  what  they  say.  As 
they  understand  it,  tlie  Holy  Land  and  .Jerusalem  are  to  be  the  centres  of  tlie  . 
glorified  kingdom  of  God,  and  restored  liji'ael  is  to  be  at  the  head  of  the  nations,  ^ 
etc.  ;  when  they  prophesy  against  Assyria,  Babylon,  and  Edom,  they  mean  these 
very  powers,  and  the  Koa/ioc  hostile  to  the  kingdom  of  God  is  represented  to  them 
by  those  then  existent  kingdoms.  It  is  not  the  consciousness  of  the  individual 
prophet,  but  the  Spirit  of  revelation,  which  already  within  the  Old  Testament 
strips  off,  as  may  often  be  pointed  out,  at  every  higher  stage  of  prophecy,  the 
temporary  form  cleaving  to  earlier  stages,  until  the  fulfilment  fully  shows  how 
far  the  symbolical  covering  extended.  Tlie  identity  of  prophecy  and  fulfilment  is 
not  a  direct  but  an  indirect  one,  brought  about  by  means  of  an  historical  process, 


492  THE  THEOLOGY   OF   PROPHETISM.  [§  216. 

which  conducts  to  a  higher  realization  that  which,  at  a  preparatory  stage,  had 
been  beheld  in  a  still  inadequate  form.  On  the  other  hand,  however,  even  the  sym- 
bolical covering  of  proiihecy  must  not  be  treated  as  something  non-essential.  For 
the  ideas  of  revelation  do  not  appear,  even  in  their  Old  Testament  fulfilment,  as 
abstract  propositions,  but  as  Divine  acts,  as  a  history  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  In 
virtue  of  the  organic  connection  existing  between  the  two  Testaments,  revelation 
brings  forth  in  the  New  Testament  circumstances,  conditions,  and  facts  which 
are  analogous,  even  with  respect  to  their  external  form,  to  their  pre-representation 
in  the  Old.  And  this  is  to  say  that  the  Old  Testament  form,  with  which  the 
matter  of  prophecy  is  covered,  is  tyincal  of  the  form  of  the  New  Testament  ful- 
filment, and  that  the  coincidence  of  the  two  may  extend  to  individual  features 

(4). 

5.  Finally,  in  forming  a  correct  judgment  of  the  relation  between  prophecy 
and  fulfilment,  the  point  yet  remains  to  be  considered,  that  God  having  in  His  rev- 
elation placed  Himself  in  an  historical  relation  with  mankind,  and  the  kingdom 
of  God  therefore  advancing,  not  by  a  process  of  nature,  but  as  a  moral  institution, 
the  fulfilment  of  prophecy  is  not  placed  outside  the  sphere  of  human  freedom, 
although  the  Divine  counsel  cannot  in  the  end  fail  to  come  to  pass  in  spite  of  all 
opposition.  As  the  fulfilment  of  the  promises  and  threats  connected  with  the 
lawXEx.  xxiii.  30-33,  Lev.  xxvi.,  Deut.  viii.  sq.)  depends  upon  the  attitude  of 
the  people  with  respect  to  the  law,  while  still  the  final  realization  of  the  theocratic 
destination  of  Israel  is  beyond  all  question  (Lev.  xxvi.  44  sqq.,  Deut.  xxx.  1-6, 
compare  §  90,  p.  197),  so  is  it  also  with  the  teachings  of  prophecy.  These,  like  the 
law,  subserves,  in  the  first  place,  an  educational  purpose,  by  making  disclosures 
concerning  the  future  to  man  for  his  good.  God  having,  as  it  is  said  Ezek.  xxxiii. 
11,  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  a  sinner,  but  in  his  turning  from  his  ways,  the 
first  purpose  of  the  prophetic  announcement  of  judgment  is  to  lead  the  people  to 
repentance  ;  and  hence,  if  this  repentance  takes  place,  the  threatened  judgrrients 
may  be  averted  (5).  The  Old  Testament  declares  as  clearly  as  possible,  that  not 
every  predicted  judgment  must  of  necessity  be  inflicted  in  the  manner  spoken  ; 
that  the  Divine  threatening  leaves  man  for  along  time  space  for  repentance  ;  that 
there  is  even,  as  it  is  expressed,  a  Divine  "repenting,"  and  that  not  merely  with 
respect  to  Israel,  but  to  heathen  nations  also.  Comp.  such  passages  as  Joel  ii. 
12  sqq.  (according  to  which  the  judgment  already  approaching  might  be  averted 
by  repentance,  and  indeed  was  subsequently  averted),  Jer.  iv.  3  sq.,  xxvi.  3, 
XKXvi.  3,  Ezek.  xviii.  30-32.  The  chief  passage,  however,  is  Jer.  xviii.  1-10, 
whose  purport  is  as  follows  :  As  the  potter  can  immediately  mar  again  the  clay 
which  he  had  formed  into  a  vessel,  if  the  vessel  displeases  him,  so  can  Jehovah 
alter  the  form  and  fate  of  a  nation  as  He  pleases.  In  such  non-fulfilment,  how- 
ever, of  His  threats  and  promises,  He  acts  not  arbitrarily,  but  according  to  a  law 
of  righteous  retribution  (6).  This  doctrine  forms,  as  is  obvious,  one  of  the  fun- 
damental thoughts  of  the  Book  of  Jonah  (iii.  3-10)  ;  comp.  also  narratives  like  2 
Sam.  xii.  13  ;  1  Kings  xxi.  38  sq.  ;  and  especially  Jer.  xxvi.  18  sq.  It  is  also 
shown,  Amos  vii.  1-6,  how  the  intercession  for  the  sinful  people,  of  the  just  who 
stand  in  the  gap,  may  avail  to  avert  a  threatened  judgment.  There  is,  however,  a 
lim.it  to  the  respites  granted  by  God's  long-suffering.  The  impenitence  of  the 
people  may  reach  a  height  at  which  no  intercession  on  the  part  of  the  righteous 


§  316.]        THE   PECULIARITIES   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT   PROPHECY.  493 

remnant  is  any  longer  possible,  vcr.  8,  Jer.  xv.  1,  and  when  the  i)rophetic  an- 
nouncement of  judgment  is  no  longer  intended  to  evoke  repentance,  but  to  mature 
obduracy  ;  comp.  as  chief  passage,  Isa.  vi.  9  sqq.  In  such  cases,  those  predic- 
tions also  whose  fullilment  has  been  hitherto  delayed,  reappear  in  full  force.  We 
see  this  from  the  quotation  in  Jer.  xxvi.  18  of  the  prediction  of  Micah.  To  the 
people  of  his  time  this  prophet  had  uttered  the  J)rediction  :  "  Zion  shall  be  plough- 
ed as  a  field,  and  Jerusalem  shall  become  heaps,  and  the  mountain  of  the  house 
as  the  high  places  of  a  forest."  When,  then,  as  it  is  further  said,  ver.  19,  Heze- 
kiah  feared  the  Lord,  and  besought  the  Lord,  "  the  Lord  repented  of  the  evil  which 
He  had  pronounced  against  them."  As  soon,  however,  as  the  penitent  return  of 
the  people  was  followed  by  a  fresh  apostasy,  the  threats  of  judgment  again  became 
valid,  and  the  subsequent  generation  experienced  their  complete  fulfilment.  So, 
too,  when  blessings  are  predicted,,  the  fulfilment  of  such  prediction  depends  upon 
moral  causes,  viz.  upon  the  obedient  submission  of  the  people  to  the  Divine  will, 
while,  nevertheless,  this  fulfilment  cannot  be  rendered  doubtful  by  any  obstacles 
which  man  can  oppose  to  it  (7).  Nor  does  the  latter  result  from  Zech.  vi.  15  (8). 
This  passage  cannot  be  understood  as  making  the  appearance  of  the  Messiah,  and 
especially  the  participation  of  the  Gentiles  in  His  kingdom,  depend  on  the  fidelity 
of  the  covenant  people,  though  it  does  connect  the  mode  in  which  the  promise 
should  be  fulfilled,  the  how,  and  the  how  far  Israel  should  become  the  stock  and 
branch  of  the  future  Church,  with  the  obedience  of  the  people  to  the  Divine 
word  (9). 

(1)  We  shall  subsequently  see  (§  339)  how  even  the  Old  Testament  struggles  to 
harmonize  both  views. 

(3)  Comp.  how,  according  to  §  301,  sacrificial  service  is  continued  in  the 
worship  of  the  future.      [But  is  it  not  spiritual  sacrifice  ? — D.J 

(3)  When  Zech.  ii.  describes  the  future  times  of  redemption,  in  which,  ver.  11, 
the  heathen  nations  join  themselves  to  the  Lord,  it  is  evident  that  such  a  king- 
dom of  God  can  no  longer  be  concentrated  within  the  narrow  walls  of  the  ancient 
Jerusalem.    IIow  then  is  the  matter  presented  to  prophetic  intuition  ?     3K/p  nir*i3 

p7l!'=l"T',  .Jerusalem  is  to  lie  open  like  a  village,  as  a  free  and  public  district ;  Jeho- 
vah is  Himself  the  fiery  wall  around  her,  and  the  glory  in  the  midst  of  her.  (But 
this  is  not  saying,  as  Kliefoth  explains  the  matter,  that  tlie  Jerusalem  of  the 
latter  days  is  to  extend  over  the  whole  earth,  and  to  be  a  multitude  of  residences 
scattered  over  the  whole  world.) 

(4)  So  e.g.  in  the  prophetic  delineation  (Isa.  liii.)  of  the  Servant  of  the  Lord 
atoning  by  His  death  for  the  sins  of  the  people,  and  afterward  glorified.  To 
this  must  be  added,  that  neither  do  we  as  yet  behold  the  phi/sical  nature  of  the 
Divine  kingdom,  but  are  still  waiting,  on  the  assurance  of  New  Testament  ])roph- 
ecy,  which  has  taken  up  and  carried  on  that  of  the  old  covenant,  for  the  time 
when,  as  it  is  said  Rev.  xxi.  3,  a  tabernacle  of  God  will  be  among  men.  For  this 
reason  it  would  ill  become  an  expositor  to  attempt  to  determine  beforehand  how 
far  the  last  form  of  the  kingdom  of  God  is  to  coincide  with  the  j)rophetic  descrip- 
tions of  the  last  things.  When  Hengstenberg  {C'hristologi/,  i.  p.  381  sq.)  declares 
himself  opposed  to  those  who  dream  of  some  future  restoration  of  Israel  to  the 
Holy  Land,  and  says,  "Even  supposing  the  children  of  Israel  were  to  return  to 
Canaan,  this  would  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  prophecy  in  question"  (Hos.  ii. 
2),  he  asserts  more  than  any  one  has  a  right  to  do  (comp.  also  the  above  article, 
p.  650). 

(.5)  Jerome  on  Ezek.  xxxiii.  (ed.  Vallars,  v.  p.  396)  rightly  defines  this  purpose 
when  he  says  :  "  Nee  statim  sequiUir,  tit,  quia  pro'pTieta  prcedicit,  veniat,  quod  prm- 


494  THE  THEOLOGY   OF   PEOPHETISM.  [§  217. 

dixit.  Non  enim  prcedixit,  ut  veniat,  sed  ne  veniat :  nee  quia  Deus  loquitur,  necesse 
est  fieri  quod  minatur,  sed  ideo  eomminatm\  ut  convertatur  ad  pcenitentiam  cui  miria- 
twr,  et  non  fiat  quodfutunmi  est,  si  verba  Domini  contemnantur.'''' 

(6)  Jer.  xviii.  7  sq.  :  "At  what  instant  I  shall  speak  concerning  a  nation,  and 
concerning  a  kingdom,  to  pluck  up,  and  to  pull  down,  and  to  destroy  ;  if  that 
nation  against  whom  I  have  pronounced,  turn  from  their  evil,  I  will  repent  of  the 
evil  that  I  thought  to  do  unto  them.  And  at  what  instant  I  shall  speak  concern- 
ing a  nation,  and  concerning  a  kingdom,  to  build  and  to  plant  ;  if  it  do  evil  in 
my  sight,  that  it  obey  not  my  voice,  then  I  will  repent  of  the  good  wherewith  I 
said  I  would  benefit  them." 

(7)  Comp.  on  this  subject  Caspari,  on  Micah,  p.  160  sqq.,  and  his  Beitrdge  zur 
Einleitung  in  das  Buck  Jesaja,  p.  96  sqq.  The  relation  of  prophecy  to  fulfilment 
has  been  elucidated  from  this  point  of  view,  especially  by  Bertheau  in  his  article, 
"Die  alttest.  Weissaguug  von  Israels  Reichsherrlichkeit  in  seinem  Lande," 
Jahrh.  fur  deutscTie  Thei>l.l85d  and  1860,  in  which,  however,  he  goes  so  far,  as 
Tholuck  (id.  p.  139)  justly  observes,  as  to  ruu  the  risk  of  making  the  idea  not  only 
of  prediction  but  even  of  prophecy  wholly  illusory.  See  what  is  further  stated 
in  opposition  to  Bertheau  in  the  above  article,  p.  658. 

(8)  Zech.  vi.  15:  "They  that  are  far  off  shall  come  and  build  in  the  tem- 
ple of  the  Lord.  .  .  .  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  if  ye  will  diligently  obey  the 
voice  of  the  Lord  your  God."     Comp.  Hengstenberg,  Ghristology,  iii.  p.  361  f. 

(9)  Israel  may,  through  unfaithfulness,  be  again  in  such  a  condition  as  that  which 
it  incurred  by  its  apostasy  before  the  Babylonian  captivity.  But  is  the  consum- 
mation of  redemption  possible  while  Israel  is,  as  a  nation,  in  a  state  of  rejection  ? 
The  Old  Testament  returns  an  absolute  negative  to  this  question.  It  speaks  only 
of  a  temporary  rejection,  which,  moreover,  takes  place  in  such  wise  that  Israel 
does  not  perish  as  a  nation,  but  is  preserved  for  future  restoration.  Was,  then, 
this  law  abolished  when  Israel  rejected  the  gracious  visitation  of  their  Messiah, 
and  the  kingdom  of  God  was  taken  from  them  and  given  to  a  nation  bringing 
forth  the  fruits  thereof?  (Matt.  xxi.  43.)  Are  the  predictions  of  the  prophets 
which  speak  of  the  glories  of  Israel  in  the  latter  days  abrogated  ?  or  are  they  only 
spiritually  fulfilled  to  the  Christian  church,  of  which  the  stock  indeed  was  formed 
by  the  elect  of  Israel  ?  These  questions  are  answered  by  Bertheau  (in  accordance 
with  the  older  Protestant  theology  ;  see  p.  646  of  the  article  cited)  as  decidedly  in 
the  affirmative,  as,  we  feel  convinced,  especially  on  the  ground  of  Rom.  xi.  25 
sqq.,  they  should  be  in  the  negative.  See  further  particulars  in  the  article 
quoted,  p.  659.  Comp.  also  Luthardt,  die  Lehre  von  den  letzten  Dingen,  pp.  18 
and  106  sqq.  [On  the  other  hand,  Keil,  Comm.  on  Ezehiel,  ii.  138-157,  and  Bib, 
Sacra,  iv.  337-369.— D.] 


(^^^ 


FOUETH  DIVISION. 

OF    THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

§217. 

Survey. 

The  chief  elements  in  the  process  of  the  development  of  the  kingdom  of  God  are, 
according  to  prophetic  intuition,  the  following.  Prophecy  starts  from  the  state 
of  contradiction  to  its  Divine  election  into  which  Israel  fell  by  apostasy.  Sinful 
Israel  belied  its  blessed  vocation.  Instead  of  testifying  for  the  true  God  before 
the  heathen,  its  character  testifies  against  Him.  God's  holiness  obliges  Him  to 
do  away  with  this  contradiction.     The  means  by  wiijnh   He  effects  this  end  is 


§  218.]  THE    DESIGN   OF   GOD'S    KINGDOM.  495 

the  infliction  of  judgment.  He  expels  His  revolted  people  from  their  home,  and 
delivers  them  up  to  the  heathen  powers.  Thus,  however,  a  fresh  contradiction 
arises  :  Israel  was  chosen  to  realize  the  Divine  purpose  of  redemption  even  among 
the  heathen  ;  but  now  that  judgment  lias  fallen  upon  Israel,  the  hcatlien  powers 
triumph  over  the  people  of  Jehovah,  and  tlierefore,  as  they  suppose,  over  Jehovah 
Himself.  This  contradiction  also  must  be  done  away  with  ;  and  this  is  elTccted 
by  the  judgments  inflicted  upon  tlie  heathen  powers  for  their  self-exaltation, 
against  the  Lord,  even  after  they  had  fulfilled  the  Divine  counsels  ;  and  by  tlie| 
destruction  of  every  secular  power  ;  and^tho  restoration,  through  this  univei-sal 
judgment,  of  the  covenant  people,  who,  though  rejected,  were  preserved  in  rc-jec- 
tion  fqr_the  fulfilment  of  tlieir  dcstinntion.  Tlie  remnant  of  the  people  is,  liow- 
ever^restored  under  the  great  Son  of  David  in  sucli  wise  tluit  it  is  now  c;ii)u])lc, 
as  a  church  inwardly _sanctifled,  of  realizing  the  Divine  counsel.  It  now  fullilt 
its  mission, — light  going  forth  from  it  to  the  Gentile  world,  and  the  remnants  ofl 
the  nations  preserved  from  judgment  being  incftVJWrated  therein,  and  assisting 
in  their  turn  in  bringing  back  the  still  dispersed  members  of  the  covenant  people, 
until  throughout  the  whole  world  every  knee  shall  bow  before  the  living  God, 
and  every  tongue  confess  Him.  Jehovah  has  now  taken  possession  of  His 
sovereignty  over  the  earth  ;  His  kingdom  is  come  ;  the  events  of  history  are  con 
eluded  (1;. 

(1)  The  attribute,  in  virtue  of  which  God  thus  determines  the  progress  of  His 
kingdom  on  earth  by  judgment  and  deliverance,  is  His  nf^ny^  Hin  righteousness. 


FIltST    SUBDIVISION. 

THE  PURPOSE  OF  GOD'S  KINGDOM  ;  THE  CONTRADICTION  THERE- 
TO PRESENTED  BY  THE  PRESENT;  THE  ABOLITION  OF  THIS 
CONTRADICTION   BY  JUDGMENT. 

I.    THE   DESIGN   OF   GOD's  KINGDOM. 

§218. 

The  idea  of  God's  purpose  in  setting  up  a  kingdom  includes  the  following 
elements:  1.  Jehovah  as  the  Creator  and  Lord  of  the  world  is  in  Himself  the  God 
of  all  nations ;  but,  2.  He  is  not  yet  God  to  all  nations,  and  is  only  manifest  as 
God  to  Israel,  His  chosen  people  ;  3.  By  means  of  Israel,  liowover.  He  is  to  he 
universally  known  and  acknowledged  ;  as  He  is  now  the  King  of  His  own  people, 
His  kingdom  is  to  be  set  up  among  all  the  nations  of  the  world  by  their  means 
(1).  Of  these  elements,  the  first  two  are,  as  we  have  seen  (§  81),  clearly  con- 
tained in  the  Pentateuch  ;  it  may  suflice  to  mention  Ex.  xix.  5  sq.  Nor  is 
the  third  element  absent  from  the  Pentateuch  (2)  ;  but  it  is  only  brought  prom- 
inently forward  in  the  patriarchal  promise,  by  which  the  severance  of  a  race  to 
become  the  recipients  of  revelation  was  accompanied  :  in  the  seed  of  Abraham 
shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth  bless  themselves,  Gen.  xii.  3,  xviii.  18,  xxii.  18, 
xxvi.  4,  xxviii.  14,  comp.  §  23,  with  note  5.  This  element,  on  the  other  hand, 
falls  iftto  the  backgrouud  at  the  period  of  the  foundation  of  the  theocracy.    Even 


496  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    PEOPHETISM.  [§  218. 

though  it  is  said  to  Pharaoh,  Ex.  ix.  16,  "  For  this  purpose  have  I  raised  thee 
up,  .  .  .  that  my  name  may  be  declared  throughout  the  whole  earth  ;"  and 
though  the  Lord  swears,  Num.  xiv.  21,  "As  truly  as  I  live,  all  the  earth  shall  be 
filled  with  the  glory  of  the  Lord  ;"  that  which  is  first  of  all  implied  is  the  glorifi- 
cation of  the  power  and  greatness  of  the  living  God  before  all  the  heathen,  as  it 
had  already  been  glorified  before  the  gods  of  Egypt,  the  future  admission  of  the 
heathen  into  the  kingdom  of  God  being  not  as  yet  announced  by  these  words. 
The  latter  thought  is  first  brought  into  full  light  by  fro'^iliecy .  In  the  older 
prophets,  indeed,  the  political  horizon  is  still  very  limited,  including  at  first  only 
the  neigMoring  nations  ;  still  their  descriptions  of  God's  guidance  of  the  history 
of  these  people,  see  e.g.  Amos  i.  sq.  (comj).  also  vi.  14,  §  176),  ix.  7  C§  219,  note 
4),  presuppose  that  universal  reign  which  is  distinctly  expressed  in  the  judg- 
ment depicted  in  Joel  iii.  When,  however,  Israel  fully  entered  into  conflict  with 
the  secular  powers,  and  tlms  appeared  on  a  wider  historical  stage,  prophecy 
clearly  and  completely  recognized  that  government  of  the  God  of  Israel  which 
embraces  all  nations,  determines  their  history,  and  directs  all  their  ways  toward 
the  accomplishment  of  His  own  purposes.  It  is  the  Lord  who,  according  to  Isa, 
X.  5  sqq.,  uses  the  Assjjrian  power  as  the  rod  of  His  anger,  and  directs  every  step 
of  the  conqueror,  xxxvii.  28.  From  Him  proceed,  according  to  ch.  xix.,  the 
revolutions  and  civil  wars  of  Egyi^t,  which  are  to  jirepare  for  its  conversion  ;  for, 
according  to  ver.  23,  the  EgypHans^are  one  day  to  serve  Him  with  the  Assyrians. 
It  is  He  who,  according  to  Hab.  i.  6  sq.,  arouses  the  Chaldeans  and  causes  them 
to  perform  terrible  acts  ;  who,  according  to  Jer.  xxvii.  5  sqq.,  made  the  earth 
and  all  that  is  upon  it,  and  gives  it  to  whom  He  will  ;  who  now  gives  all  lands 
into  the  hand  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  His  servant.  Ezekiel  declares,  xxxi.  9,  that 
it  is  He  who  raised  the  king  of  Egypt  to  the  height  of  prosperity,  and  again  (xxx. 
4  sq.)  put  the  sword  into  the  hand  of  the  king  of  Babylon  to  overthrow  the  power 
of  Egypt,  and  to  show  the  Egyptians  that  He  is  the  true  God.  It  is  He  who  is 
said,  Isa,  xiii.  3  sq.,  Jer.  li.  11  sqq.,  to  lead  the  Median  hosts  against  Babylon, 
and,  Isa.  xli.  sqq.,  to  use  Cyrus,  though  he  knows  it  not,  as  His  instrument.  The 
purpose,  however,  of  all  this  intervention  of  God  in  the  heathen  world  is  ex- 
pressed, xlv.  22  sq.,  in  the  words:  "Turn  unto  me,  ...  all  the  ends  of  the 
earth  :  for  I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  else.  I  have  sworn  by  myself,  the  word 
has  gone  out  of  my  mouth  in  righteousness,  and  shall  not  return,  That  unto  me 
every  knee  shall  bow,  every  tongue  shall  swear."  The  Booh  of  Dnnidjin  partic- 
ular, portrays  in  magnificent  touches  the  universality  of  the  Divine  kingdom  : 
"God  changeth  times  and  seasons:  He  removeth  kings  and  setteth  up  kings," 
ii.  21.  The  kingdoms  of  the  world  which  are  from  beneath  have  run  their 
course  according  to  His  appointment,  ch.  ii.  and  vii.,  that  the  kingdom  of  God 
which  is  to  come  from  above,  and  which  all  people  and  tongues  must  serve,  vii. 
14,  may  be  set  up  in  its  eternal  power  and  glory. 

(1)  [Comp.  Riehm,  Messianic  Prophecy,  where  tlie  connection  of  the  extension 
of  the  kingdom  of  God  to  all  nations  with  the  Old  Testament  idea  of  God  find 
man,  is  more  fully  discussed.] 

(2)  Comp.  the  prophetic  words  of  Noah,  §  21,  with  note  (2). 


§  219.]       TvELATION  OP  THE  PRESENT  TO  THE  DIVINE  KINGDOM.  497 

II.    THE    RELATION   OF   THE    PRESENT    TO    THE   PURPOSE  OF  THE   DIVINE   KINGDOM. 

§219. 

What,  then,  it  may  be  asked,  is  the  relation  of  the  jiresent  to  the  purpose  of 
God's  kingdom  ?  Israel  and  the  nations  of  tlie  world  are  in  a  state  of  contradiction 
thereto.  With  respect  to  Israel,  we  have  already  described,  in  §  202,  and  need 
not  here  repeat,  how  the  conviction  dawned  upon  the  propliets  that  the  Israel  of 
the  present  was  incapable  of  fulfilling  its  mission  to  the  world.  This  nation, 
which  was  to  be  the  means  of  converting  the  heathen  to  God,  had  become  worse 
than  the  heathen  ;  comp.  also  the  passage  not  quoted  in  that  section,  Ezek.  v.  5 
sqq.  (1).  In  what  relation,  then,  do  the  heathen  stand  to  the  kingdom  of  God  ?  is 
a  question  which  we  must  now  enter  into  somewhat  more  particularly.  The  doctrine 
that  the  heathen,  as  such,  form  with  respect  to  the  privileged  people  of  God  a 
class  entirely  without  rights,  nay,  exposed  to  the  wrath  of  God,  has  been  at- 
tributed to  the  Old  Testament.  FTha  false  view  to  which  the  author  objects  is 
that  the  heathen  are  under  the  Divine  displeasure  on  account  of  not  lieina  Jews.  He 
would  not  deny,  as  the  latter  part  of  the  section  shows,  that  their  idolatry  and  re- 
jection of  God  justly  expose  them  to  punishment. — D.]  According  to  this  view,  the 
roots  of  the  well-known  haughty  particularism  of  the  Pharisees  are  to  be  found  in 
the  Old  Testament.  But  if  it  is  said,  Jer.  x.  25  (comp.  with  the  parallel  passage, 
Ps.  Ixxix.  6  sq.),  "  Pour  out  Thy  fury  upon  the  heathen  that  have  not  known 
Thee,  and  upon  the  families  that  call  not  upon  Thy  name,"  it  is  added,  "For 
they  have  eaten  up  Jacob,  and  devoured  him,  and  consumed  him,'*  etc.,  showing 
that  not  the  heathen  in  general  are  intended,  but  the  nations  who  have  raged 
against  Israel.  If  Mai.  i.  2,  "Jacob  have  I  loved,  and  Esau  have  I  hated,"  is  also 
appealed  to,  and  the  question  asked.  Is  it  not  here  taught  that  God,  for  no  reason 
but  of  His  own  choice,  loves  one  people  and  makes  another  a  vessel  of  wrath  ? — 
we  reply  that,  though  this  expression  cannot  be  got  over,  as  Steudel  endeavors, 
by  taking  it  in  a  merely  relative  signification,  as  though  to  hate  meant  only  to 
love  less,  still  we  have  here  no  causeless  reprolatio  in  the  sense  of  a  Calvinistic  abso- 
lute decree,  forin  ver.  4  it  is  immediately  added,  "  Edomis  a  region  of  wickedness" 
(pV,'P'\  '^^4)  ;  and  this  is  explained  by  the  prophetical  passages,  Joel  iv.  19,  Amos 
i.  9,  etc.,  concerning  Edom'srage  against  the  covenant  people.  More  difficult  is, 
at  the  first  glance,  the  much-discussed  passage,  Isa.  xliii.  3  sq.  :  "I  gave  Egypt 
for  thy  ransom,  Gush  and  Seba  for  thee,  because  thou  wast  precious  in  my  sight," 
etc.  ;  "  therefore  I  gave  men  for  thee,  and  nations  for  thy  life."  Does,  then,  this 
passage  indeed  teach  that  God  substitutes  guiltless  nations  for  His  chosen  people, 
who  properly  deserve  punishment  ?  By  no  means.  The  passage  only  applies  to 
the  history  of  nations  the  principle  laid  down,  Prov.  xi.  8  and  xxi.  18,  with  re- 
spect to  individuals  (2),  viz.  that  God's  judgments  upon  the  wicked  subserve  the 
best  interests  of  the  godly.  For  an  intimation  that  these  heathen  nations  were 
innocent  victims  for  the  sake  of  Israel,  is  no  more  given  in  this  place  than  in  the 
case  of  Pharaoh,  when  he  is  set  forth,  Ex.  ix.  16,  as  an  example  of  judgment. 
The  heathen  nations  are  not,  indeed,  entitled  to  any  favor  from  God,  inasmuch  as 
they,  like  all  creatures,  can  make  no  claims  upon  Him  in  whose  presence  they  are, 


498  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    PROPHETISM.  [§  219. 

as  it  is  said,  Isa,  xl.  15-17,  "  as  a  drop  of  a  bucket,  as  the  small  dust  of  the  bal- 
ance, as  nothing."  But  this  is  true  of  Israel  also,  according  to  its  condition  by 
nature  ;  comp.  Deut.  vii.  7  (§  81),  Isa.  xlv.  9  sqq.  (3).  Israel  itself  has  only  a 
claim  of  grace,  and  that  a  conditional  one.  The  prophets  constantly  testify  against 
the  delusion  that  the  fact  of  their  election  could  give  the  rebellious  nation  claims 
upon  God.  On  the  contrary,  the  significant  passage,  Amos  ix.  7,  declares  the 
covenant-breaking  people  to  be  on  a  level  with  the  heathen  (4).  On  the  other  hand, 
God's  long-suffering  watches  also  over  the  heathen  ;  comp.  the  passage  Jer.  xviii. 
7  sq.  (already  quoted,  §  21G,  and  note  6,  in  another  connection),  and  the  Book  of 
Jonah,  which  teaches  how  the  patience  of  God  gives  to  the  heathen  also  space  for 
repentance.  The  heathen  are  certainly  already  guilty  before  God  on  account  of  their 
idolatry,  the  folly  and  worthlessness  of  which  they  might  readily  have  perceived 
(Isa.  xl.  17  sqq.,  xli.  23  sq.,  xliv.  9,  xlvi.  5  sq.,  Jer.  x.  8  sqq.,  Ps.  cxv.  4  sqq.).  For 
this,  however,  they  are  punished  by  that  state  of  helplessness  into  -which  all  heath- 
enism falls,  and  which  shows  that  it  is  forsaken  of  God,  as  is  so  admirably 
portrayed  in  the  prophecy  concerning  Moab,  Isa.  xv,  sq.  (comp.  especially  xvi.  12), 
in  Isa.  xli.  6  sq.,  and  other  passages.  Undoubtedly  certain  expositors  have  ex- 
plained passages  like  Ps.  ix.  18 :  Q'ri':^  'n?E?  d:ij-'73  nSixtj;^  -oyvj^^  niE/;  ("the 
wicked  shall  be  turned  into  hell,  and  all  the  heathen  that  forget  God"),  as  declar- 
ing that  the  heathen  are  guilty,  D'i't^"?,  because  they  \mYG  forgotten  and  renounced 
that  knowledge  of  God  which  was  imparted  to  them  by  primitive  revelation.  But 
the  context  is  decidedly  against  a  theoretical  view  of  the  passage,  and  shows  that 
a  practical  forgetfulness  of  God  is  intended  when  D'H^^  'TIQ^?'  are  spoken  of,  and 
therefore  that  the  heathen  have  renounced  that  law  of  God  which  was  known 
to  them  also.  Hence  the  passage  is  well  elucidated  by  Isa.  xxiv.,  where  the 
prophet  sees  a  general  judgment  overwhelming  the  whole  earth,  because,  accord- 
ing to  ver.  5,  "they  have  transgressed  the  laws,  changed  the  ordinance,  broken 
the  everlasting  covenant,"  wherefore  "  the  earth  is  defiled  under  the  inhabitants 
thereof," — the  words  evidently  pointing  back  to  the  NoacMan  covenant  with  the 
world,  and  the  law  connected  therewith.  [It  is  quite  possible,  however,  that 
this  passage  refers  rather  to  the  land  of  Israel,  as  Umbreit,  Alexander,  and  many 
others  hold. — D.]  That,  however,  which  properly  exposes  the  healben_to  the 
judgments  proceeding  from  the  God  of  Israel  [viz.  those  which  are  specially 
threatened. — D.],  is  their  enmity  toward,  the  covenant  people,  and  this  for  the  follow- 
ing reasons  :— ^Firs^  It  is  characteristic  of  Israel,  as  the  covenant  people,  that  no 
nation  in  the  world  was  ever  so  bitterly  hated  by  other  nations  as  Israel  was,  be- 
cause it  claimed  to  be  the  Lord's  people,  not  in  the  same  manner  as  other  nations 
might  boast  of  their  own  gods  without  denying  the  existence  of  other  gods,  but 
because  it  declared  the  gods  of  other  nations  to  be  things  of  naught  (§  42.  2),  and 
demanded  of  them  submission  to  the  God  of  Israel.  For  this  reason,  too,  hatred 
to  Israel  was  hatred  to  Israels  God.  Malicious  delight  in  the  misfortunes  of 
Israel  was  a  joy  that  the  God  who  was  declared  to  be  alone  powerful  was  just  as 
powerless  as  the  people  that  were  called  by  His  name  ;  comp.  the  defiant  address 
of  the  generals  of  Sennacherib,  xxxvi.  18-20.  With  this  is  connected,  ^gecondjj^ 
the  fact  that  the  heathen  nations  whom  God  made  use  of  as  instruments  for  the 
chastisement  of  His  people  did^ot  regard  themselv^sas  such,  but  behaved 
toward   them  with  self-exaltation,   and  treated  them  with   unbounded  cruelty. 


§  220.]  THE   DAY   OP  THE   LORD,  ETC.  499 

Comp.  such  passages  as  Isa.  x.  5  sqq.  (5),  Zecli.  i.  15,  Isa.  xlvii.  G.  All  human 
i'/3/j/c,  however,  as  such,  exposes  to  the  judgment  of  Got].  The  arrogant  and 
self-relying  creature  must  be  reduced  to  its  own  nothingness  by  the  holy  God, 
Isa.  ii.  11  sqq.  (6).  In  the  Old  Testament  it  is  chiefly  Babylon  which,  in  accord- 
ance with  its  origin  (Gen.  xi.),  exhibits  that  Titanic  pride,  that  self-deification, 
described  Hab.  i.  11,  16,  Isa.  xiv.  13  (7),  which  makes  Babylon  a  typical  instance 
of  Divine  judgment. 

(1)  Ezek.  V,  5  sqq.  :  "  This  is  Jerusalem  which  I  have  set  in  the  midst  of  the 
nations  and  countries  round  about  her.  But  she  hath  changed  my  judgments  into 
wickedness  more  than  the  nations,  and  my  statutes  more  than  the  countries  round 
about  her  ;  for  they  have  refused  my  judgments  and  my  statutes,  they  have  not 
walked  in  them." 

(3)  Prov.  xi.  8:  ''The  righteous  is  delivered  out  of  trouble,  and  the  wicked 
Cometh  in  his  stead."     lb.  xxi.  18  :  "  The  wicked  is  a  ransom  for  the  righteous." 

(3)  Isa.  xlv.  9  :  "  Woe  unto  him  that  striveth  with  his  Maker,  a  potsherd  among 
the  potsherds  of  earth.  Shall  the  clay  say  to  him  that  fashioneth  it,  What  makest 
thou?" 

(4)  Amos  ix.  7,  the  prophet  exclaims  to  the  sinful  people  :  "  Are  ye  not  as  the 
children  of  the  Ethiopians  imto  me  ?  .  .  .  have  not  I  brought  up  Israel  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt,  and  the  Philistines  from  Caphtor  (Crete),  and  the  Syrians  from 
Kir?"  The  thought  of  this  frequently  misunderstood  jiassage  is  identical  with 
that  of  Rom.  ii.  25  :  irepcTO/uy  fitv  yap  l)(j)E?iEl,  kav  vdfiov  Trpdcarjq'  kav  6e  napajidTr]^ 
v6fj.ov  yc,  V  T^epiTO/ir;  gov  aKpojivcr'ta  yeyovev. 

(5)  Isa.  X.  5  sqq.  :  Assyria  is  the  rod  in  the  hand  of  Jehovah.  According  to 
ver.  7,  however,  "  he  meaneth  not  so,  neither  doth  his  heart  think  so  ;"  and  in 
ver.  13  he  says  :  "By  the  strength  of  my  hand  have  I  done  it,  and  by  my  wisdom  ; 
for  I  am  prudent." 

(6)  Isa.  ii.  12  :  The  Lord  of  hosts  holds  a  day  upon  every  one  that  is  proud  and 
lofty  and  upon  every  one  that  is  lifted  up,  and  he  shall  be  brought  low.  Comp. 
also  the  discussion  of  the  Divine  holiness  in  §  44. 

(7)  Hab.  i.  :  It  is  the  Lord  who,  according  to  ver.  6,  raises  up  the  Chaldeans, 
"the  bitter  and  hasty  nation,"  which  rushes  through  tlic  land  and  overcomes  all 
opposition.  In  ver.  11,  however,  we  ai-e  told  of  the  Chaldean,  that  his  strength 
is  his  god  ;  ver.  16  that  "they  sacrifice  to  their  own  net,  and  burn  incense  to 
their  own  drag,"  wherewith  they  fish  for  men.  In  Isa.  xiv.  13,  the  Chaldean  con- 
queror says,  in  his  heart.  "  I  will  ascend  into  heaven,  I  will  exalt  my  throne 
above  the  stars  of  God,  I  will  sit  also  upon  the  mount  of  the  congregation  in  the 
sides  of  the  north,"  etc. 


III.    THE    JITDGMENT. 

§  220. 

The  Bay  of  the  Lard.      The  Judgment  upon  the  Covenant  People. 

"  God  that  is  holy  sanctifies  Himself  in  righteousness"  (Hpny?  CJ/npJ  W)-\pr\  '7«n), 
Isa.  V.  16  (1),  by  sending  destructive  judgments  upon  all  that  opposes  His  purpose 
of  redemption,  and  thus  insuring  the  triumph  of  His  kingdom.  The  usual  desig- 
nation of  this  final  theocratic  judgment  is,  from  Joel  i.  15  and  ii.  1  onward, 
nin;  DV,  "the  day  of  Jehovah,"  comp.  Zeph.  i.  7  ;  "  the  day  of  Jehovah's  anger," 
ii.  3  ;  "the  great  and  terrible  day  of  Jehovah,"  Mai.  iv.  5  (2).     It  is  the  day  on 


% 


500  THE  THEOLOGY   OE   PTIOPHETTSM.  [§  220. 

which  the  Lord  will  humble  all  the  loftiness  of  man,  and  will  alone  be  exalted, 
Isa.  ii.  17,  comp.  v.  16.  The  features  by  which  the  prophets  portray  this  day, 
the  manner  in  which  they  describe  it  as  announced  and  accompanied  by  terrible 
natural  phenomena,  Joeliii.  8sq.,  Isa.  xiii.  9sq.,  Zeph.  i.  15  sqq., — features  which 
have  been  partially  transferred  to  the  eschatological  passages  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament,— are  not  to  be  regarded  as  merely  j)oetic  coloring,  but  rest  upon  the 
scriptural  view  of  the  inalienable  connection  between  the  course  of  nature  and  the 
progress  of  the  Divine  kingdom.  The  first  question  then  is  :  What  is  the  connection 
between  the  judgments  on  the  covenant  feople  and  the  judgments  on  the  heathen  icorld  ? 
They  seem  to  stand  in  immediate  connection  in  the  great  picture  of  judgment  in 
Zeph.  i.  sq.  We  have  here  the  same  day  of  the  Lord  going  forth  upon  Jerusalem 
and  upon  the  nations  of  the  world,  the  whole  earth  being  consumed  by  the  fire  of 
the  Divine  wrath  (3).  More  strictly  speaking,  however,  the  relation  of  the  two 
judgments  to  each  other  is,  that  the  iudament  of  Israel  in  2)oint  of  time  pr£cedes,  that 
of  the  nations  of  the  world  follows, — the  deliverance  of  the  covenant  people  being 
effected  by  means  of  the  latter.  Judgment  must  first  begin  at  the  house  of  God, 
as  the  apostle  Peter  expresses  it  (1  Pet.  iv.  17).  "  You  only  have  I  known,"  it  is 
said,  Amos  iii.  3,  "of  all  the  families  of  the  earth  :  therefore  will  I  punish  you  for 
your  iniquities."  Just  because  Israel  was  held  up  as  an  example  to  the  world  of 
how  God  loves,  so  is  it  now  to  bear  witness  how  He  punishes.  ' '  I  will  execute 
judgment  in  the  midst  of  thee,  in  the  sight  of  the  nations,"  Ezek.  v.  8.  Every 
pledge  of  God's  election  now  becomes  a  pledge  of  judgment  to  the  apostate  people. 
They  who  trust  in  being  able  to  say,  "  The  temple  of  the  Lord,  the  temple  of 
the  Lord  is  here,"  are  reminded  by  Jeremiah,  vii.  4-15,  how  judgment  had  already 
fallen  upon  the  place  of  the  sanctuary  at  Shiloh.  And  Ezekiel,  in  the  majestic 
vision  recorded  ch.  ix.,  sees  judgment  beginning  at  the  sanctuary  and  those  who 
are  called  to  be  its  guardians.  We  have  lastly  to  notice  the  historical  frogress 
observable  in  the  announcement  of  judgment  upon  the  covenant  people.  In  the 
Book  of  Joel,  Judah  is  to  incur  only  a  visitation  which  leads  the  people  to  repent- 
ance (4).  In  Amos^  the  judgments  to  be  inflicted  upon  the  ten  tribes  occupy  the 
foreground, — "that  sinful  kingdom"  (which  does  not  at  the  same  time  apply  to 
Judah)  being  destined  to  irrevocable  destruction,  ix.  8,  because  the  gradually 
increasing  chastisements  inflicted  on  her  have  been  in  vain,  iv.  6-11,  vii.  1-9, 
while  only  a  state  of  extreme  depression  is  predicted,  ix.  11,  concerning  Judah. 
On  the  other  hand^  Hos.  ..i.  11  seems,  though  the  meaning  of  the  passage  has  been 
disputed,  to  assume  the  rejection  of  Judah  also.  And  after  the  catastrophe  of 
Samaria  fails  to  have  the  effect  of  leading  Judah  to  repentance,  projjhecy 
announces  henceforth  the  ruin  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  the  destruction  of  the 
temple,  the  desolation  of  tlie  land,  and  the  captivity  of  the  jjeople,  the  locality  of 
which  is  first  designated  as  Babylon  in  Mic.  iv.  10,  Isa.  xxxix.  6  sq.  Judgment 
being  the  abrogation  of  the  covenant  relation  between  God  and  His  people,  it  was 
inflicted  (as  we  saw,  §  89,  on  the  doctrine  of  retribution)  in  theJorm  of  expulsion 
from  the  Holy  Land  (to  which  the  theocratic  vocation  of  Israel  is  united),  the  abo- 
lition of_wwshipby^thejwithdra^^  shekhina_from  the  desecrated  sanctuary, 
andme  cessation  of  the  theocratic  gqyermnent.  Israel  was  to  abide  many  days 
without  a  king,  without  a  princeTlmd  without  a  sacrifice,  Hos.  iii.  4,  and  to  eat 
polluted  bread  among  the  heathen,  ix.  4,  comp.  also  Lam.  ii.  6  sq. 


§  221.]  THE   JUDGMENT    UPON   THE   IIEATnEN   NATIONS.  501 

(1)  Comp.  the  remarks,  §§  44,  47,  on  the  connection  between  holiness  and  right- 
eousness. 

(2)  "  A  day  of  trouble  and  distress,  .  .  .  a  day  of  darkness  and  gloominess," 
etc.,  Zeph.  i.  15  sq.  This  day  is  ever  drawing  nearer,  therefore  woe  to  the  mockers 
"who  desire  the  day  of  the  Lord  !  .    .  .  itis  darkness  and  not  light,"  Amos  v.  18. 

(3)  Comp.  the  prophecy  of  Amos,  ch.  i.  sq.  (§  176).  The  precedence  here  given 
to  the  judgment  upon  the  heathen  nations  is  intended  to  awaken  the  reflection  : 
If  God  thus  punishes  the  heathen  for  their  transgressions  against  His  people,  how 
will  he  not  punish  the  rebellion  of  His  own  people  ? 

(4)  For  the  captivity  of  Judah,  Joel  iii.  1,  and  the  dispersion  of  Israel  among 
the  heathen,  seem  to  refer  only  to  that  partial  captivity  and  dispersion  which 
in  the  days  of  this  prophet  had  already  commenced  (comp.  §  180). 

§221. 
The  Judgment  upon  the  Ileatlien  Nations. 

The  judgment  inflicted  upon  His  covenant  people  is  held  up  by  the  Lord  as  a 
warning  to  the  heathen.  Jehovah,  as  Judge  of  His  people,  is  a  witness  against 
the  heathen,  Mic.  1.  2.  Comp.  also  as  chief  passage,  Jer.  xxv.  29  sqq.  :  "Do  I 
begin  to  bring  evil  on  the  city  which  is  called  by  my  name,  and  should  ye  be 
utterly  unpunished  ?  Ye  shall  not  be  unpunished,  for  I  will  call  for  a  sword  upon 
all  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth."  And  then  is  described  the  manner  in  which  evils 
shall  pursue  one  nation  after  another  like  a  whirlwind,  until  the  slain  shall  lie 
from  one  end  of  the  earth  to  the  other.  The  judgment  inflicted  on  the  heathen  is 
(as  we  have  already  seen,  §  219)  frequently  so  connected  with  that  jjoured  out 
upon  Israel,  that  the  arrogance  with  which  the  heathen,  as  the  Lord's  Instru- 
ments, have  treated  Israel,  the  contempt  which  they  have  even  shown  for  Israel's 
God,  is  represented  as  calling  forth  the  Divine  vengeance.  The  cliief  passage  in 
this  respect  is  Isa.  x.  5  sqq.  (§  219,  note  5) ;  comp.  also  esjiecially  Obad.  15  sq. 
and  other  passages. 

The  vifij5L-of  the  several  prophets  concerning  the  judgments  upon  the  heathen 
world  is  faj^hinnp.d  according  to  the  historical  perspective  imposed  upon  each  by 
rnnf-.p.Tnpnrn.rY  events.  The  earliest  description  is  found  in  Joel,  ch.  iii.  All  the 
nations  (D''.'ijn-'73),  by  whom,  however,  as  tlie-ctJnlext  shows,  the  prophet  chiefly 
means  the  neighboring  peoples J^PlHlistTnes,  Phoenicians,  Edomites),  who  have  all 
along  injured  Judah^re  siimmoned  to  the  final  judgment  in  the  valley  of  Jehosha- 
phat.  The  nations  themselves,  indeed,  are  unacquainted  with  this  Divine  counsel, 
Mic.  iv.  12  (1).  Their  purpose  is,  according  to  Joel  iii.  9  sqq.,  by  summoning  all 
their  forces,  to  give  a  final  blow  to  the  covenant  people,  and  in  this  great  effort 
they  transform  into  weapons  even  the  implements  of  peace.  By  the  symbolical  name, 
"  valley  of  Jehoshaphat"  (valley  where  Jehovah  judges),  the  prophet  undoubtedly 
means  the  valley  which  subsequently  received  this  name  from  this  very  passage, 
viz.  the  Kedron  valley,  which  runs  between  the  Mount  of  Olives  and  the  Temple 
Mount,  and  afterward  turns  in  a  south-easterly  direction  toward  the  Dead  Sea 
(2).  The  fact  that  the  nations  are  assembled  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the 
temple  indicates,  as  Hengstenberg  correctly  explains  it,  that  the  judgment  is  an 
outflow  of  the  theocracy  ;  that  the  nations  of  the  world  are  punished  in  the  last 
judgment,  not  on  account  of  their  trangressions  against  natural  law,  but  for  the 


502  THE  THEOLOGY   OF   PROPHETISM.  [§  221. 

position  they  occupy  toward  the  covenant  people,  and  consequently  toward  the 
God  of  revelation  (3).  While  then  Apaos^  whose  opening  sentence,  i.  2,  connects 
his  prophecy  with  Joel  iii.  16,  divides  this  general  judgment  into  many  acts  of 
national  judgment,  Isaiah  again,  xxiv.-xxvii.  (4),  sets  before  us  a  representa- 
tion of  a  gentg-al  judgm^iit  of  the  world,  without  any  definite  historical  connec- 
tion, except  that  a  return  from  Assyrian  captivity  being  spoken  of,  xxvii.  13,  the 
standpoint  of  the  Assyrian  period  is  adhered  to.  That  a  judgment  in  the  heavenly 
world  of  spirits  is  here  ])laced  in  connection  witli  the  judgment  of  the  worldly 
powers,  who  are,  xxvii.  1,  designated  by  symbolical  names,  has  been  already 
pointed  out  (§  199,  but  see  note  there  in  brackets).  On  the  other  hand,  projDhecy, 
even  in  the  Assyrian  period,  points  onward  beyond  Assyria  to  Babylon,  the  power 
which,  after  being  used  as  an  instrument  of  judgment  against  Judah,  is  itself  to 
be  the  object  of  an  act  of  general  judgment.  Thus  in  Isa.  xiii.,  the  day  of 
Babylon's  destruction  is,  according  to  ver.  9  sqq. ,  the  day  which  is  to  make  the 
earth  desolate,  and  to  destroy  the  sinners  thereof  out  of  it ;  the  day  on  which,  ver. 
13,  the  Lord  will  shake  the  heavens  and  move  the  earth  out  of  its  place.  Habak- 
kuk  also,  ch.  ii.,  beholds  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  the  Lord  overwhelming 
all  earthly  greatness  as  the  waters  cover  the  sea,  ver.  14,  after  the  overthrow  of 
the  Chaldean  conqueror.  In  Jeremiah,  too,  the  series  of  announcements  of  judg- 
ments upon  the  nations  closes  with  the  magnificent  jDrediction  of  the  fall  of 
Babylon,  ch.  1.  sq.  Among  other  nations,  it  is  Edom  which  is  especially  brought 
forward  by  the  prophets  as  an  object  of  judgment  (comp.  Jer.  xlix.  7  sqq.,  which 
takes  up  the  former  prophecy  of  Obadiah,  and  Isa.  xxxiv.,  Ixiii.  1-6,  Ezek.  xxxv.), 
as  a  type  of  those  nations  of  heathendom  whose  origin  and  the  course  of  whose 
history  had  placed  them  nearest  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  but  who  had  only 
opposed  that  kingdom  with  the  more  deadly  hatred  (5). 

The  fall  of  Babylon  is  not,  however,  contemporaneous  with  the  end  of  this  dis- 
pensation, and  accordingly  the  history  of  the  world  goes  on,  and  with  it  the  judg- 
ment of  the  world  still  proceeds  (6).  In  the  first  place,  the  remarkable  prophecy  of 
Ezekiel,  ch.  xxxviii.  sq.,  concerning  Gog  from  the  land  of  Magogs  who  (rmnN3 
D'P'lI),  xxxviii.  16,  comes  with  mighty  hosts  (DV-^P  ^W9  °^-,  ^er.  12),  to  which 
the  nations  of  both  Asia  and  Africa  contribute,  against  the  Holy  Land  (4),  where 
the  entire  army  perishes  by  its  mutual  animosities,  reach^sjarjjfiyoudjhe  fall  of 
Babjlon.  At  any  rate,  Gog  can  by  no  means,  as  Ewald  supposes,  signify  Baby- 
lon, to  which  the  prophecies  of  Ezekiel  do  not  in  general  relate.  The  prophetic 
intuition  is  here,  on  the  contrary,  extended  to  the  utmost  limits  of  heathendom, 
for  the  purpose  of  imi^ressing  the  thought  that,  before  the  end  comes,  all  the  rest 
of  the^world  will  also  have  attempted  to  resist  thekin£doni_of_Ggd.  For  this 
reason,  tooTitls  that  Ezekiel's  prediction  Is  made  use  of,  Rev.  xx.  8,  in  the  de- 
scription of  the  last  conflict  against  the  Holy  City.  This  prediction  of  judgment 
is  then  taken  up  by  the  post- Babylonian  prophets.  First,  Haggai,  ch.  ii.  21  sq., 
shortly  before  the  Persian  wars,  announces,  but  without  definitely  connecting  the 
prediction  with  any  one  secular  power,  that  shaking  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth 
which  is  to  precede  the  establishment  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  in  which  the 
Lord  will  overthrow  the  throne  of  kingdoms  and  destroy  the  strength  of  the 
kingdoms  of  the  heathen,  in  such  wise  that  every  one  shall  fall  by  the  sword  of 
his  brother.     Here,  as  in  Ezek.  xxxviii.  21,  we  again  meet  with  the  idea,  embod- 


§  221.]  THE   JUDGMENT    UPOX   THE    HEATHEN    NATIONS.  503 

ied  in  earlier  historical  occurrences,  Judg.  vii.  22,  2  Cliron.  xx.  22  sq.,  that  the 
powers  of  the  Koa/wg  are  to  consume  each  other,  to  prepare  for  the  triumphant 
progress  of  the  kingdom  of  God  (7).  The  passages  in  Zcch.  xii.-xiv.,  especially  ch. 
xiv.,  are  still  more  closely  connected  with  the  proj^hecy  of  Ezekiel  concerning 
Gog,  and  at  the  same  time  carry  on  still  further  that  of  Joel  (8).  All  the  nations  of 
the  earth  are  assembled  to  fight  against  Jerusalem  ;  the  rulers  and  inhabitants  of 
Jerusalem  are  endowed  with  marvellous  power  ;  but  the  conflict  is  a  terrible  one  ; 
the  Holy  City  is  taken,  and  half  of  the  people  are  carried  into  captivitJ^  When 
things,  however,  have  come  to  the  worst,  Jehovah  appears  with  all  His  saints  up- 
on the  Mount  of  Olives  for  the  deliverance  of  His  people.  This  day  of  decision 
is  a  day  of  terrible  darkness  ;  but  after  the  enemies,  panic-stricken  by  God,  have 
now  also  helped  to  exterminate  each  other,  the  light  of  redemption  shall  dawn  on 
the  evening  of  this  last  day  of  the  present  dispensation.  Here  again  the  thought 
is  impressed  that  the  Church  will  have  to  endure  not  merely  a  judicial  sifting, 
like  that  announced  by  Malachi,  ch.  iii.  2,  18,  to  those  of  his  contemporaries  who 
were  thirsting  after  an  infliction  of  judgments  upon  the  heathen,  but  an  extrem- 
ity of  tribulation,  in  which  it  will  seem  to  have  perished. 

We  close  this  survey  of  Old  Testament  prophecy  concerning  the  judgment  of 
the  world,  with  Daniers  prophecy  of  the  four  kingdoms.  According  to  ch.  ii. 
and  vii.,  the  history  of  the  world  is  to  run  its  course  in  four  kingdoms.  The 
imity  of  these  kingdoms,  i.e.  the  fact  that  each  of  them  represents  the  Koajuog  as 
opposed  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  is  pointed  out  in  ch.  ii.  by  the  colossal  image 
which  these  kingdoms  together  compose,  in  ch.  vii.  by  the  circumstance  of  their 
successively  arising  from  the  ocean,  tossed  and  disturbed  by  the  four  winds,  the 
symbol  of  the  storm-tossed  heathen  world.  The  worldly  power  is  destroyed  at  a 
blow  by  the  kingdom  of  God  coming  from  heaven.  We  cannot  here  more  par- 
ticularly discuss  these  four  kingdoms.  Not  to  mention  utterly  untenable  views, 
it  will  always  be  a  matter  of  dispute  whether  to  adopt  the  traditional  interpreta- 
tion, still  advocated  by  Hengstenberg,  Reichel,  Hofmann,  and  others,  which 
makes  these  to  embrace  the  Chaldean,  Medo-Persian,  Grecian,  and  Roman  empires 
(9),  or  the  now  more  usual  one  (of  Delitzsch  among  others),  which  makes  the 
fourth  kingdom  the  Grecian,  and  explains  the  others  variously — mostly,  however, 
regarding  the  second  as  the  Median,  the  third  as  the  Persian.  Of  special  impor- 
tance, however,  is  that  feature  in  these  delineations  of  judgment,  vii.  8,  11,  20  sq., 
25,  which  represents  the  arro<^ance_pf  the  secular  power  and  its  hostility  to  the 
kingdom  of  God  as  at  last  concentrated  in  a  king  who,  with  a  mouth  speaking 
great  things,  blasphemes  the  Most  High,  and  proceeds  to  destroy  His  worship 
and  exterminate  His  saints,  etc.  ;  who  then  for  a  period  obtains  power  over  the 
saints  of  the  Most  High,  until  the  final  judgment  takes  place  and  involves  him  in 
destruction,  vii.  22,  26,  etc.  That  evil,  too,  will  inwardly  come  to  maturity  be- 
fore the  final  judgment,  is  the  thought  which  is  here  more  distinctly  expressed 
than  before.  Ch.  xi.  6  sees  a  prelirnhiaxy  historical  embodiment  of  this  view, 
in  Antiochus  Epiphanes  ;  and  thus  the  Maccabean  persecution,  which  contributed 
to  the  purification  of  the  people,  becomes  a  tvpe  of  the  last  tribulation,  of  the 
church,  xii.  1,  which  shall  be  such  as  never  was  since  there  was  a  nation,  but 
which  shall  conduce  to  the  purification  and  preservation  of  the  church,  ver. 
10  (10). 


504  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  PEOPHETISM.  [§  321. 

(1)  MiC.  iv.  12  :  The  heathen  who  rejoice  over  the  fall  of  Zion  "know  not  the 
thoughts  of  the  Lord,  neither  understand  His  counsel,  that  He  has  gathered  them 
as  sheaves  into  the  iioor." 

(2)  For  it  is  from  Zion,  according  to  Joel  iii.  16,  that  the  roaring  of  the  judg- 
ment proceeds.  On  the  other  hand,  many  expositors  understand  here  the  valley 
in  the  neighborhood  of  Jerusalem,  which  was  rendered  illustrious  by  the  proceed- 
ings of  King  Jehoshaphat,  2  Chron.  xx.  (§  179j.  This  valley  was,  according  to 
ver.  26  of  this  chapter,  called  after  this  occurrence  nD"^3  p'Qi?..  (valley  of  bless- 
ing). [Orelli,  p.  238,  would  make  it  another  valley  in  the  vicinity  of  Jerusalem, 
which  then  bore  the  name  of  Jehoshaphat.]  The  name  £03E/in.''  can,  however, 
hardly  be  derived  from  King  Jehoshaphat,  but  is  symbolical ;  whence  we  find 
V'inn  ppjr.,  joel  iii.  14. 

(3)  Only  we  must  not,  in  this  delineation  of  judgment  with  its  local  and  geo- 
graphical limitations,  regard  the  prophet's  meaning  as  merely  allegorical.  It  is  the 
Old  Testament  form  of  thought  which  is  also  found  in  the  New  Testament,  Matt, 
xxiv.  14,  when  it  is  declared  that  before  the  final  judgment  "the  gospel  of  the 
kingdom  must  be  preached  in  the  whole  oIkovjuev^j  for  a  icitness  unto  all  nations." 

(4)  [On  these  chapters  comp.  Orelli,  p.  335  sq.] 

(5)  [The  view  that  the  prophecy  of  Obadiah  is  dependent  upon  that  of  Jeremiah 
{e.g.  Hitzig)  is  decidedly  to  be  rejected,  because  in  the  former  we  find  none  of 
the  peculiar  diction  of  the  latter,  and  because  the  Book  of  Obadiah  is  closely  con- 
nected, while  in  Jeremiah,  on  the  contrary,  breaks  occur  in  the  line  of  thought. 
This  independence  of  Obadiah,  demonstrated  by  Caspari,  is  recognized  by  Graf, 
Strack,  and  Orelli.  Obadiah  appears  to  have  prophesied  not  long  after  the  event 
recorded  in  2  Chron.  xxi.  8-10,  but  whether  before  Joel  (Delitzsch,  and  most  re- 
cently Orelli)  or  after  him  cannot  with  certainty  be  determined.] 

(6)  It  is  assumed  in  this  projjhetic  picture  that  Israel  is  again  dwelling  in  the 
Holy  Land. 

(7)  [On  Gog  and  Magog,  comp.  Orelli,  p.  416  sq.,  also  his  art.  "  Gog  and  Magog  " 
in  Herzog,  and  Kautzsch's  art,  "Magog"  in  Riehm.  "In  the  far-seeing  gaze  of 
prophecy  it  is  an  idle  question,  what  nations  or  events  of  his  own  age  the  prophet 
in  his  description  had  in  view.  Even  if  the  remembrance  of  the  irruption  of  the 
Scythians  under  Josiah  may  have  affected  his  description,  the  mention  of  the  Ethio- 
pians, etc,  shows  what  the  prophet  had  in  mind.  Magog,  along  with  the  others, 
is  a  type  of  the  heathen  nations  in  the  ends  of  the  earth,  where,  after  the  over- 
throw of  Israel,  neighboring  enemies  for  the  last  time  gather  the  forces  of 
heathenism  for  an  onset  upon  the  people  of  God  (Kautzsch).] 

^  (8)  [The  authorship  of  Zech.  xii.-xiv.  is  not  attributed  to  the  post-exilic  Zecha- 
riah  by  the  most  recent  writers,  and  is  placed  by  Steiner  (in  Hitzig's  Kommentar) 
and  Orelli  (p.  387  sq.)  in  the  last  period  of  Solomon's  temple.  The  latter  appeals 
to  tlie  mention  of  the  false  prophets  and  of  idol  worship  in  the  prophecy.  But 
the  mention  of  false  i^rophets  agrees  also  with  the  post-exilic  times  (comp.  §  192), 
Nothing  certainly  is  said  of  idolatry  after  the  exile,  but  in  the  numerous  mar- 
riages with  heathen  wives  there  was  reason  to  fear  that  idolatrous  worship  would 
again  creep  in.  In  respect  to  the  assumption  that  Ezekiel  used  these  chapters,  the 
converse  may  justly  be  maintained.— The  reference  of  their  authorship  to  a 
propliet  who  lived  after  the  exile,  and  therefore  probably  to  Zechariah,  is  still 
the  only  correct  one.  J 

(9)  A  view  which,  if  we  confine  ourselves  to  ch.  ii.  and  vii.,  may  not  only  be 
justified,  but  also  offers  in  every  respect  a  more  natural  explanation  of  the  sepa- 
rate details,  but  against  which  serious  difiiculties  arise  as  we  read  further. 

(10)  How  far  the  last  judgment  extends  to  the  dead  also,  and  how  far  prophetic 
eschatology  in  Daniel  prepares  the  way  for  the  doctrine  of  eternal  condemnation, 
will  be  shown,  §  236,  in  connection  with  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  ^  226. 


§  222,]       THE    liEbTOllATlON    OF    ISKAEL   A   NECESSARY    EVE2ST.  505 


SECOND    SUBDIVISION. 

THE  FUTURE  REDEMPTION  (1). 

I.  THE  DELIVERANCE  AND  RESTORATION  OP  THE  COVENANT  PEOPLE. 

§  222. 

The  Restoration  of  Israel  a  Necessary  Event. 

Ths  resJQ^mi  of  Israel,  as  before  remarked,  is  not  founded  upon  any  claim 
that  can  be  advanced  by  tliis  people  (comp.  §  202),  hit  solely  upon  the  nature 
of  their  Ood  as  the  Holy  and  Faithful  One.  When  Israel  incurred  the  Divine 
judgment,  the  Divine  purpose  of  redemption  seemed  to  be  frustrated.  In  the 
opinion  of  the  heathen,  and  even  of  unbelievers  in  Israel  itself,  it  was  over  with 
the  nation,  and  hence  the  glory  of  its  God  had  come  to  naught ;  He  had 
shown  Himself  to  be  a  weak  God.  Thus  the  judgment  upon  Israel,  which 
was  to  manifest  Him  to  the  heathen  as  the  Holy  One,  had  produced  the  oppo- 
site result.  This  is  thus  expressed,  e.g.  Ezek.  xxxvi.  20  sq.  :  Israel  being  cast 
out  among  the  heathen,  profaned  God's  name  among  them,  for  they  said,  "These 
are  the  people  of  the  Lord,  and  yet  they  are  gone  forth  out  of  His  land."  There- 
fore, as  ver.  22  sqq.  further  declares,  Jehovah,  to  sanctify  His  great  name,  that 
the  heathen  may  know  Him  to  be  the  true  God,  must  put  a  stop  to  judgment, 
and  cancel  the  rejection  of  Israel.  That  which  is  here  and  in  other  passages 
(comp.  Deut.  xxxii.  27,  Isa.  xlviii.  9  sqq.)  represented  as  an  event  ncnssdry  to  the 
prese)-vation  of  the  honor  of  the  true  God,  appears  elsewhere  as  mtlier  the  retsult  oj 
His  nature.  For  the  idea  of  God  as  the  absolutely  unchangeable  Being  requires, 
as  was  shown,  Pt.  I.,  that  the  peo])lc  with  whom  He  has  entered  into  a  covenant 
relation  cannot  perish  ;  comp.  especially  the  passage  Mai.  iii.  6,  discussed  §  39, 
with  note  5.  As  Jehovah,  He  is  the  Faithful  O/ic, whose  words  of  promise,  given 
to  the  fathers  of  the  nation  who  found  favor  in  His  sight,  shall  stand  for  ever, 
while  all  that  is  earthly  shall  perish,  Isa.  xl.  7  sq.  (2).  His  faithfulness  cannot  be 
made  void  by  the  unfaithfulness  of  man.  He  has  not  given  a  writing  of  divorce- 
menTlo  the  adulterous  wife,  for  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  profound  passage,  Isa. 
1.  1  (3),  already  mentioned  (§  188)  in  another  connection  ;  and  hence  there  is  no 
need  that  He  should  renew  the  covenant  relation.  For  their  iniquities  the  people 
are  sold,  but  He  is  able  to  overcome  and  do  away  with  sin  (Mic.  vii.  18  sq.  (4), 
Isa.  xlii.  25).  Nay,  the  Divine  judgment  of  rejection  is  to  have  the  effect  of 
causing  the  whole  power  of  the  Divine  love  to  shine  forth  (5)  ;  comp.  Jer.  xxxi. 
2  sq.,  20,  Hos.  xi.  8  sq.,  Isa.  xlix.  14  sqq.  (6),  liv.  7-10,  and  other  passages. 
But  hoio  does  this  love  deliver?  How  does  it  come  to  pass  that  Israel,  though 
judged,  is  still  delivered  ?  that  God's  calling,  which  is  to  remain  unchangeable, 
attains  its  end  in  this  very  nation,  which  has  shown  itself  incapable  of  fulfilling 
its  vocation?  The  answer  is, — 1.  God  so  arranges  that  a  rcxforntioiiof  this  natiofi  is 
possihle  ;  and  2.  He  so  restores  the  nation  asto  make  it  a.  .fit  inntrumtntjor  the  a(com~ 
plishmen~(  of  Ills  purposes  of  redemption,  „ 


506  THE  THEOLOGY   OF   PROPHETISM.  [§  223. 

(1)  The  future  redemption  is  represented  as  embracing, — 1.  The  deliverance  and 
restoration  of  the  rejected  covenant  people  in  which  even  the  just  who  have  fallen  asleep 
are  to  participate  by  the  resurrection.  2.  The  introduction  of  those  heathen  who 
have  been  saved  from  judgment  into  the  Jcingdom  of  God  by  means  of  the  restored 
covenant  people.  3.  The  prophecies  concerning  redemption  culminate  in  the 
appearance  of  the  Messiah. 

(2)  Isa.  xl.  7  sq  :  "  Surely  the  people  is  grass  :  the  grass  withereth,  the  flower  fad- 
eth  ;  but  the  word  of  our  God  shall  stand  for  ever." 

(3)  Isa.l,  1  :  "Thus  saith  the  Lord,  Where  is  the  bill  of  your  mother's  divorcement 
whom  I  have  put  away  ?  or  which  of  my  creditors  is  it  to  whom  I  have  sold  you  ? 
Behold,  for  your  iniquities  have  ye  sold  yourselves,  and  for  your  transgressions  is 
your  mother  put  away."  The  first  half  of  the  verse  is  explained  by  the  law, 
Deut.  xxiv.  3  sq.  (§  104.  2).  This  law  certainly  applies  to  Israel,  inasmuch  as 
repudiated  Israel  could  not,  see  Jer.  iii.  1,  of  its  own  power  restore  the  covenant 
relation.  But  to  God  such  restoration  was  not  impossible,  for  it  was  not  He  but 
Israel  that  had  cancelled  the  covenant.  Neither  had  He  given  up  His  claim  upon 
the  nation  He  had  rejected. 

(4)  Mic.  vii.  18  sq.  :  "Who  is  a  God  like  unto  Thee,  that  pardoneth  iniquity, 
and  passeth  by  the  transgression  of  the  remnant  of  His  heritage  ?"  (for  those  are 
the  acts  which  manifest  God's  incomparableness).  "  He  retaineth  not  His  anger 
for  ever,  because  He  delighteth  in  mercy.  He  will  turn  again,  He  will  have  com- 
passion upon  us.  He  will  subdue  our  iniquities  ;  and  Thou  wilt  cast  all  their  sins 
into  the  the  dej^ths  of  the  sea."    (Comp.  §  202.) 

(5)  Clompare  how,  as  remarked,  Pt.  I.  (§  29),  the  first  breach  of  the  covenant 
on  the  part  of  the  people,  Ex.  xxxiv.  6  sq.,  led  to  the  first  disclosure  of  the  grace 
and  comjjassion  of  God. 

(6)  The  people  exiled  and  wandering,  take  with  them  as  a  legacy  the  saying, 
Jer.  xxxi.  2  sq.  :  "I  have  loved  thee  with  an  everlasting  love,  therefore  with 
loving-kindness  have  I  drawn  thee."  Hos.  xi.  8  sq.  :  "How  shall  I  give 
thee  up,  Ephraim?  how  shall  I  deliver  thee,  Israel?  how  shall  I  make  thee  as 
Admah?  how  shall  I  set  thee  asZeboim?"  {i.e.  utterly  exterminate  thee).  "Mine 
heart  is  turned  within  me,  my  repentings  are  kindled  together,"  etc.  (comp. 
§  44).  Isa.  xlix.  14  sqq.  :  "  Zion  said.  The  Lord  hath  forsaken  me,  and  my  Lord 
hath  forgotten  me.  Can  a  woman  forget  her  sucking  child,  that  she  should  not 
have  compassion  on  the  son  of  her  womb  ?  Yea,  they  may  forget,  yet  will  I  not 
forget  thee." 

§223. 

The  Remnant  of  Jacob.      The  New  Covenant  an  everlasting  one.      The  Forgiveness  of 
Sins.     The  Outpouring  of  the  Spirit. 

1.  GodH  judgments  have  a  uurrme^  and  therefore  a  measure,  as  taught  by  Isaiah  in 
the  profound  parable,  ch.  xxviii.  24  sqq.  (1),  already  quoted  §  90.  When  God 
inflicts  judgments  on  the  covenant  people.  His  motive  is  not  to  annihilate  them, 
like  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  but  to  correct  them  with  judgment  (£33^03  ID'.),  Jer. 
X.  24,  XXX.  11,  i.e.  in  due  measure,  Isa.  xxvii.  8  (according  to  the  probable  expla- 
nation of  nXDKD|),  which  measure  is  imposed  by  the  Divine  holiness  ;  see  as 
chief  passage,  Hos.  xi.  8  sq.  According  to  this  measure,  judgment  is  so  inflicted 
upon  Israel  that  they  are  preserved  therein.  But  how,  it  may  be  asked,  is  this 
possible  ?  And  here  we  meet  with  the  important  prophetic  doctrine  of  the  rinxu/ 
^\^^',-  0\^K  ^^^h  etc.)  the  remnant  of  Jacoh.  While  the  mass  of  the  nation 
became  rebellious,  individuals  maintained  their  fidelity,  like  the  seven  thousand  in 
the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  who  in  Elijah's  time  had  not  bowed  the  knee  to 


§  ^23.]  THE   KEMNANT   OP  JACOB,  ETC.  507 

Baal,  1  Kiugs  xix.  18.  In  these  faithful  ones,  this  ecclesia  invisihiUs  of  the  ohl 
covenant,  we  have  a  pledge  that  the  people  of  God  shall  not  perish  ;  comp.  as  cliief 
passage,  Isa.  viii.  17  sq.,  where  Isaiah  brings  forward  liimself  and  his  sons  as  signs 
and  examples  in  the  sense  here  designated  (2).  The  intercession  of  these  servants 
of  God  procures  a  longer  exemption  from  judgment  for  the  people  ;  comp.  e.g. 
Amos  vii.  1-6.  But  even  when  they  can  effect  nothing  further,  Jer.  xvi.  1,  the 
just  must  themselves  be  preserved,  Ezek.  xiv.  14-20  :  it  must  be  verified  in  them 
that  the  just  lives  through  his  faith,  Eab.  ii.  4  (3).  Though  Israel  be  sifted 
among  all  nations  as  grain  is  sifted  in  a  sieve,  yet  shall  no  grain  fall  to  the  earth, 
according  to  the  well-known  jiassage,  Amos  ix.  9  (4).  Or  though  Israel,  accord- 
ing to  another  image,  be  felled  like  a  tree,  there  still  remains  for  a  stock  "  a  holy 
seed,"  Isa.  vi,  13  (5).  For  the  sake  of  this  seed  of  His  servants,  GodjviU  not 
exterminate  Israel  ;  comp.  as  chief  jjassage,  Isa.  Ixv.  8  sq.  This  remnant,  Isaiah 
declares,  eh.  x.  21,  shall  return,  this  remnant  of  Jacol),  to  the  mighty  God  (G). 
This  remnant  is,  as  Zcph.  iii.  12  says,  a  humble  and  poor  people,  who  trust  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord.  Comp.  also  the  ri'l^fti'  of  Mic.  ii.  12,  v.  6,  Jer.  xxiii.  3.  Thus 
is  Israel  preserved  in  the  midst  of  judgment ;  judgment  effects  the  sifting  of  the 
people. 

2.  In  this  restored  remnant,  the  stock  of  the  new  church,  the  Divine  counsel  is 
to  attain  its  end,  and  that  for  ever.  The^neic  covenant  is  everlasting.  "  I  will 
betroth  thee  to  me  for  ever,"  Hos.  ii.  19.  It  is,  Isa.  liv.  Ssq.,  with  an  everlasting 
kindness,  as  unalterable  as  the  Noachian  coveuanl,  that  the  Lord  has  mercy  on 
His  people  ;  nay,  though  the  mountains  depart  and  the  hills  be  removed,  i.e. 
though  all  that  is  most  stable  be  overthrown,  this  covenant  of  peace  shall  not  be 
removed  ;  comp.  Jer.  xxxi.  35-37,  1.  5,  Isa.  xli.  8,  Ezek.  xvi.  60,  and  other 
passages.  And  what  is  the  pledge  of  this  stability  ?  The  fact  that  in  tlie  new  cov- 
enant, God  does  not  merely  demand,  but  effects  that  nature  in  His  feoide^  in  virtue  of 
which  they  are  now  fitted  for  their  vocation  (7).  Tliis  restoration  of  the  people  does 
not  indeed  take  place  in  a  magical  manner  ;  it  becomes  possible  on  their  part 
through  deep  repentance  for  former  sins,  and  a  zealous  return  to  their  God,  Deut. 
XXX.  2  ;  comp.  especially  (with  regard  to  the  ten  tribes)  Jer.  xxxi.  19.  Hence  it 
is  that,  when  the  Divine  summons  penetrates  the  lands  of  their  captivity,  the 
rejected  ones  hasten  with  trembling,  lest  their  deliverance  should  be  delayed,  Hos. 
xi.  10  sq.  (iii.  5),  and  rpfnrn  with  wpppin.r  nn<l  supplications.  Jer.  xxxi.  9,  1.  4  sq. 
The  Divine  foraiveness_coxYcs\ior).di&  with  the  repentance  of  the  people,  and  is  com- 
plete. The  adulteress  becomes  the  bride  of  God,  as  though  she  had  never  been 
unfaithful,  "  like  a  wife  of  youth,"  Isa.  liv.  6  ;  "  that  thou  mayest  never  open  thy 
mouth  any  more  because  of  thy  shame,  when  I  am  pacified  toward  thee  for  all 
thou  hast  done,  saith  the  Lord  God,"  Ezek.  xvi.  63.  The  fact  that  God  thus 
restores  the  people  to  the  same  relation  to  Himself,  is  their  righteousness  from  Him, 
'J^KD  Dnp^lV,  Isa.  liv.  17,  6iKaioavv7]  kx  Qeo'v.  This  state  of  grace  of  tlie  redeemed 
church  is  maintained  against  all  their  accusers  :  every  tongue,  it  is  said  in  the  same 
verse,  that  shall  rise  against  thee  in  judgment  thou  shalt  condemn.  Thus  the 
people  are  all  righteous  (a'p^lV),  Isa.  Ix.  21.  But  this  righteousness  of  grace, 
which  thus  abolishes  sin,  becomes  also  a  righteousness  of  life,  a  new  vital  principle 
being  implanted  in  the  church  by  the  outpouring  of  the  Divine  Spirit.  The  new 
pburch  is  a  spiritual  church,  CQrop.  Isa.  xliv.  3,  lix.  21,  Ezek.   xxxix.  29.     Even 


508  THE  THEOLOGY   OF   TROPHETISM.  [§  223. 

in  the  Old  Testament  theocracy,  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  given  (Isa. 
Ixiii.  11  "he  that  put  his  Holy  Spirit  within  him"),  but  His  guidance  was  the 
prerogative  of  the  organs  of  the  theocracy,  especially  of  the  prophets,  and  then 
certainly  of  the  pious  in  general.  But  such  guidance  was  effected  only  by  an  in- 
fluence and  not  by  an  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  even  in  the  prophets  this 
influence  was  an  extraordinary  endowment  (§  65,  204).  The  church  of  the  future, 
on  the  contrary,  is  founded  upon  an  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  upon  all  flesh,  Joel 
ii.  28  sq.  "l^l"^-?  is  not  indeed  the  whole  world  of  mankind,  the  ndaa  aap^  of 
John  xvii.  2  ;  but  it  is  declared,  by  the  enumeration  which  follows  of  sons  and 
daughters,  old  men  and  young  men,  servants  and  handmaids,  that  no  age  or  station 
is  excluded  from  the  possession  of  the  Spirit.  Indeed,  this  outpouring  of  the  Spirit 
is  represented  as  causing  all  to  prophesy.  That  direct  personal  communion  with 
God  wiiich  is  effected  by  the  Spirit,  and  which  afforded  the  prophets  an  insight 
into  the  Divine  counsels,  is  to  become  the  common  possession  of  all  members  of  the 
church  ;  and  thus  is  to  be  fulfilled  that  desire  of  Moses,  expressed  Num.  xi.  29  (8). 
With  this  agree  also  the  passages  Jer.  xxxi.  34,  where  it  is  said  of  the  church  of 
the  new  covenant,  "They  shall  no  more  teach  every  man  his  neighbor,  .  .  .  saying. 
Know  the  Lord,"  etc.  (§  209)  ;  and  Isa.  liv.  13  :  "All  thy  children  shall  be  'l^sS 
niri",  the  taught  of  the  Lord."  This  teaching  of  God  under  the  new  covenant, 
confirmed  as  it  is  by  the  passages  John  vi.  45,  1  John  ii.  20,  27,  which  again  take 
up  these  prophetic  utterances,  has,  as  is  notorious,  been  explained  by  fanatics  as 
excluding  human  instruction,  and  abolishing  a  learned  order  in  the  church  of  the 
new  covenant.  But  these  passages  are  not  intended  to  do  away  with  human  means 
for  obtaining  a  knowledge  of  saving  truth,  but  to  proclaim  the  independence  of 
human  authority  enjoyed  by  each  member  of  the  church  with  respect  to  his  assur- 
ance of  salvation.  They  promise  that  Divine  truth  shall  be  directly  testified  to  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  each  member  of  this  church.  Hengstenberg,  on  Jer.  xxxi.  34,  very 
aptly  refers  in  elucidation  to  2  Cor.  iii.  3,  where  the  SiaKovia,  which  brings  about 
an  appropriation  of  salvation,  is  expressly  presupposed  (9).  This  impartation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  besides  communicating  a  vital  knowledge  of  God,  purifies  the  heart 
and  creates  a  readiness  to  fulfil  the  Divine  will,  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25-27,  Jer.  xxxi. 
33  (10).  And  thus  the  end  of  the  Old  Testament  educational  work  is  attained; 
the  holy  people  of  God  is  also  a  subjectively  holy  church. 

(1)  Isa.  xxviii.  24  sqq.  :  As  the  farmer  does  not  always  plough,  but  also  sows, 
does  not  always  thresh  and  so  destroy  the  corn,  but  only  so  far  as  is  required  for 
obtaining  bread,  so  does  God  proceed  as  Judge. 

(2)  In  Isa.  viii.  17,  the  prophet  contrasts  himself  and  his  sons  with  the  rebel- 
lious nation,  which  for  its  contempt  of  God's  word  is  to  be  exposed  to  the 
approaching  judgments  of  utter  helplessness  and  hopelessness  :  "  I  wait  for  the 
Lord,  that  hideth  His  face  from  the  house  of  .Jacob,  and  hope  in  Him.  Behold,  I 
and  the  children  whom  the  Lord  hath  given  me  for  signs  and  emblems  in  Israel,  from 
the  Lord  of  Hosts  which  dwelleth  in  Mount  Zion."  Tlie  sign  is  seen  by  many 
only  in  the  symbolic  names  of  Isaiah  and  his  sons.  This  is  not  to  be  excluded  ; 
but  still  the  main  thought  is,  that  they  were  tliemselves  personally  such  signs  and 
emblems. 

(3)  As  it  was  verified  to  .Jeremiah,  to  whom  the  Divine  word  came,  xxxix.  18, 
at  the  destruction  of  .lerusalem  :  "Thy  life  shall  be  for  a  prey  unto  thee,  be- 
cause thou  hast  put  thy  trust  in  me." 

(4)  Amos.  ix.  8  sq.  ;  "Behold,  the  eyes  of  the  Lord  God  are  upon  this  sinful 


§  224.]         OTHER   FEATURES   OF   THE   TIMES   OF    REDEMPTION.  509 

kingdom,  and  I  will  destroy  it  from  off  the  face  of  the  eartli ;  savins?  that  I  will 
not  utterly  destroy  the  house  of  .lacob,  saith  the  Lord.  (Tlie  sinful  kingdom,  the 
kingdom  of  Samaria,  is  to  be  destroyed,  but  tliis  is  by  no  moans  a  destruction  of 
the  house  of  Israel.)  For  lo,  I  will  command,  and  I  will  sift  the  house  of  Israel 
among  all  nations,  like  as  corn  is  sifted  in  a  sieve,  yet  shall  not  the  least  grain 
fall  upon  the  earth." 

(5)  Isa.  vi.  13  sq.  :  The  Lord  removes  the  men,  "  and  great  is  the  forsaking  in 
the  midst  of  the  land.  And  if  there  is  therein  still  a  tenth,  yet  shall  this  also  be 
consumed."  But,  continues  the  prophet,  "  as  a  teil  tree,  and  as  an  oak,  in  which, 
when  they  are  felled,  a  stock  remains  ;  the  holy  seed  is  their  stock." 

(6)  Isa.  X.  21  :  fl34  Sx-^K  2\)y^_  ^m  2Wl  ^m.  Isaiah  called  one  of  his  own 
sons  2W^  "iNti',  comp.  vii.  3,  for  a  testimony  against  the  ungodly  and  secure,  who 
expected  the  deliverance  of  the  entire  nation,  and  for  the  comfort  of  the  godly. 

(7)  Comp.  what  is  said  on  Jer.  xxxi.  31  sqq.,  in  §  203. 

(8)  [It  is  quite  in  keeping  with  Wellhausen's  view  of  the  Old  Testament  that 
in  his  interpretation  of  the  prophecy  in  Joel,  ii.  28,  he  makes  the  "  undoul)tedly 
post-exilic  writer"  express  in  the  passage  the  "ideal  of  the  general  drift  of  the 
law,  which  needs  and  tolerates  no  heroes  "  (i.  p.  420).] 

(9)  2  Cor.  iii.  3  :  "  Ye  are  an  epistle  of  Christ  ministered  by  us  {SiaKovrjdelaa  v<p' 
^fiijv),  written  not  with  ink,  but  with  the  Spirit  of  the  living  God  ;  not  on  tables 
of  stone,  but  on  fleshly  tables  of  the  heart." 

(10)  Jer.  xxxi.  33  :  "I  will  put  my  law  in  their  heart,"  etc.  See  what  has 
already  been  said  on  this  passage,  §  303, 

§324. 
OtTier  Features  of  the  Times  of  Redemption. 

The  other  features  of  the  times  of  redemption  are,  according  to  prophetic 
intuition,  the  following  : — 

1.  Tlie  return  of  the  people  to  the  Holy  Land,  and  the  restoration  of  Jerusalem. 
This  point,  recurring  as  it  does  in  almost  every  prophecy  of  redemption,  needs  no 
special  references  (§  33,  note  3).  The  possession  of  the  Holy  Land  is  declared  to 
be  a  perpetual  one,  from  Joel  iii.  20  and  Amos  ix.  15  onward  (1),  with  increase 
of  territory,  Obad.  17  sqq.  (3). 

3.  The  reunion  qf  the  twelve  tribes.  It  would  be  a  grievous  misfortune  for  the 
nation  that  one  tribe  of  Israel  should  be  lost,  comp.  Judg.  xxi.  3,  6  ;  and  the 
disruption  of  the  theocracy  was  a  consequence  and  a  punishmeut  of  sin  (3), 
Hence  there  can  be  no  complete  redemption  for  Israel  without  the  reunion  of  the 
ten  tribes  and  of  Judah  under  one  head  ;  see  Hos.  ii.  2,  iii.  5,  Isa.  xi.  13  (4).  This 
point  is,  however,  most  fully  treated  in  the  prophecy  of  Ezekiel,  xxxvii.  15-32, 
where  the  matter  is  presented  in  a  visible  manner  by  the  symbolical  act  of  joining 
two  sticks,  which  were  probably  formed  from  the  trunk  of  a  vine  split  length- 
wise (5). 

3.  By  reason  of  the  causal  connection  between  sin  and  evil,  the  restoration  of 
the  people  being  a  deliverance  from  sin,  is  at  the  same  time  the  abolition  of  evil 
in  all  respects— «n  aMition  of  all  the  troubles  of  life.  The  ordinances  of  the  ancient 
theocracy  were  calculated  to  exhibit  an  outwardly  consecrated  nation,  in  order  to 
make  the  people  conscious  (in  virtue  of  that  tuition  of  the  law  which  pointed  from 
the  external  to  the  internal),  by  its  demands  of  an  outward  purity,  of  their  need 
of  the  sanctiflcation  of  the  inner  man  (§  84).     Now,  however,  the  process  was  re- 


510  THE   THEOLOGY    OP   PKOPHETISM.  [§  224. 

versed,— the  sanctification  of  the  inner  life  effected  by  the  Holy  Spirit  was  to  press 
outward,  and  manifest  itself  in  a  perfect  purification  and  consecration  of  even  the 
most  ordinary  affairs  of  life.  Thus,  to  give  a  few  examples,  the  difficult  passage 
Jer.  xxxi.  38  sqq.  so  describes  the  boundaries  of  the  new  Jerusalem,  that  all  the 
unclean  places  of  the  ancient  city  are  now  sacred  places  (6).  So,  too,  Zech.  xiv. 
20  sq.  expresses  the  thought  that  holiness  is  to  penetrate  even  to  that  which  is 
most  external  ;  that  while,  under  the  sway  of  sin,  all  that  was  sacred  was  pro- 
faned, now,  on  the  contrary,  all  that  was  profane  shall  be  sacred.  In  that  day 
nirr'?  'dip  (the  inscription  on  the  high  priest's  diadem)  shall  stand  even  upon  the 
bells  of  the  horses,  nay,  the  very  cooking  utensils  in  Jerusalem  shall  be  holy  (7). 
Among  the  troubles  of  life  so  frequently  summed  up  in  the  Old  Testament  as  the 
four  chief  evils  (§  89,  note  5)  which  shall  be  abolished,  war  is  especially  mentioned. 
All  weapons  are  to  be  destroyed,  Isa.  ii.  5,  Mic.  v.  4-10,  Zech.  ix,  10,  etc.  ;  the 
new  church  is  unapproachable  in  its  protected  retirement,  Mic.  vii.  14  ;  the  new 
city  of  God  is  no  more  to  be  desecrated  by  enemies,  Joel  iii.  17.  Peace  is  also  to 
pervade  nature.  The  harmony  between  it  and  man,  which,  according  to  Gen.  iii., 
comp.  §  73.  2,  was  disturbed  by  sin,  is  to  be  restored  ;  the  Holy  Land  is  to  be 
glorified,  and  a  fountain  of  life  to  proceed  from  the  temple,  Joel  iii.  18,  Ezek. 
xlvii.  6  sqq.  (8).  Every  blessing  of  heaven  and  earth  is  to  be  poured  out  upon 
the  favored  people  ;  all  that  can  harm  thomis  to  be  done  away  with  ;  comp.  such 
descriptions  as  Hos.  ii.  18  (9),  23  sq.,  Amos  ix.  13  sq.,  Ezek.  xxxiv.  25  sqq.,  etc. 
The  nature  of  the  wild  beasts  is  to  be  changed,  Isa.  xi.  6-8  (10),  comp.  Ixv.  25. 
But  in  all  these  pictures  of  the  days  of  redemption  we  always  perceive  that  such 
external  renovation  presujiposes  deliverance  from  sin  and  inward  renewal.  Thus 
Isa.  xi.,  after  describing  the  peace  which  is  to  prevail  in  the  animal  world,  con- 
tinues in  ver.  9  :  "  They  shall  not  hurt  nor  destroy  in  all  my  holy  mountain  :  for 
the  earth  shall  be  full  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord,  as  the  waters  cover  the  sea" 
(11).     [Many  of  these  expressions  are  evidently  figurative. — D.] 

(1)  Joel  iii.  20  :  "  Judah  shall  dwell  forever,  and  Jerusalem  from  generation  to 
generation."  Amos  ix.  15  :  "I  will  plant  them  upon  their  land,  and  they  shall 
no  more  be  pulled  up  out  of  their  land  which  I  have  given  them." 

(2)  How  differently  would  the  prophets  have  spoken  if  they  had  regarded 
Canaan  and  Jerusalem  in  a  merely  allegorical  sense  ! 

(3)  We  have  already  (§  93,  note  1)  spoken  of  the  fact  that  the  number  of  twelve 
tribes  was  essential  to  the  normal  condition  of  the  theocracy. 

(4)  Isaiah  announces,  xi.  13,  that  in  the  times  of  redemption  "the  envy  of 
Ephraim  shall  depart,  and  the  adversaries  of  Judah  be  cut  off." 

(5)  Ezek,  xxxvii.  15-23.  The  prophet  writes  upon  one  stick,  "For  Judah  and 
the  children  of  Israel  associated  with  him  ;"  upon  the  other,  "For  Joseph,  the 
.'■tick  of  Epliraim  and  the  whole  house  of  Israel  associated  with  him, " — and  presses 
the  two  sticks  together  in  his  hand.  The  meaning  of  this  act  is  stated  ver.  31  : 
"  Behold,  I  will  take  the  children  of  Israel  from  among  the  heathen,  whither  they 
be  gone,  and  will  gather  them  on  every  side,  and  bring  them  into  their  own  land  ; 
and  I  will  make  them  one  nation  in  the  land  upon  the  mountains  of  Israel ;  and 
one  king  shall  be  king  to  them  all ;  and  they  shall  be  no  more  two  nations,  neither 
shall  they  be  divided  into  two  kingdoms  any  more  at  all." 

(6)  Jer.  xxxi.  38  sqq.,  it  is  said  that  at  the  rebuilding  of  Jerusalem  the  measur- 
ing line  should  go  forth  as  far  as  the  hill  Gareb  (i.e.  of  the  leper),  and  turn  tow- 
ard Goath  (perhaps  as  Hengstenberg  tliinks,  from  V)^,  to  depart,  to  decease  ; 
then  perhaps  the  place  of  execution)  ;  and  the  whole  valley  of  the  dead  bodies  and 


§  325.]  DEATH    DESTROYED.  511 

of  the  ashes,  and  all  the  Shcroniolh,  to  the  brook  of  Kidron  (certainly  identical 
with  the  {■'"^Ip  niDT^,  the  fields  of  Kidron,  2  Kinj^js  xxiii. ;  these  were,  according 
to  ver.  4,  defaled  by  Josiah,  who  burned  in  them  all  the  abominations  of  idolatry), 
were  to  be  holy  to  the  Lord.  This  has  certainly  a  symbolical  meaning,  but  must 
not  be  regarded,  as  by  Hengstenberg  (Chrintol.  u.  p.  448),  as  being  in  the 
view  of  the  prophet  only  an  image  of  the  triumph  of  God's  kingdom  over  the 
world.  [It  will  be  noticed  that  the  author  understands  niD^2^  (Sheremoth)  to  be 
an  error  of  copyists  for  rilDlK^  (A.  Y.Jidd.s)  :  so  the  Keri,  and  Miihlau  and  Volck, 
Lex.— D.] 

(7)  It  is  further  said,  Zech.  xiv.  20  sq.,  that  the  pots  in  the  Lord's  house  shall 
be  like  the  bowls  before  the  altar  ;  and  every  ])ot  in  Jerusalem  and  Judah  shall  be 
Jioliness  for  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  and  all  they  that  sacrifice  shall  come  and  take  of 
them  and  seethe  therein.  In  the  Mosaic  worship  the  pots  in  the  temple  were  less 
holy  than  the  bowls,  for  the  laity  sacrificed  in  the  former,  while  the  priest  sprin- 
kled the  sacrificial  blood  with  the  latter.  This  distinction  is  now  abolished,  as  is 
also  the  distinction  between  vessels  for  worship  and  for  secular  purjjoses,  because 
all  the  relations  of  life  are  now  equally  hallowed  by  God. 

(8)  Ezek.  xlvii.  6  sqq.  :  Waters  issue  forth  from  the  threshold  of  the  temple  in 
the  east ;  these  waters  run  into  the  Dead  Sea,  and  make  its  waters  wholesome. 
(See  Neumann,  Das  Wasser  des  Lehe?is  ein  exeget.  Versvch  iiber  Bkek.  xlvii.  1-12, 
1848.)  [Keil,  in  the  second  edition  of  his  Commentary,  appealing  to  Isa.  xii.  3 
and  xliv.  3,  interprets  the  river  in  a  spiritual  sense.  The  figure  of  the  brook  is- 
suing from  under  the  threshold  of  the  temple  and  becoming  constantly  larger 
symbolizes  the  thought  "  that  the  salvation  which  the  Lord  causes  to  flow  down 
from  His  throne  to  His  people  would  from  small  beginnings  become  wonderfully 
increased."  On  the  contrary,  Orelli  (p.  422)  agrees  with  the  view^  in  the  text — a 
blessed  land,  a  garden  like  Eden,  in  place  of  the  previous  desolation,  encircles  the 
Sanctuary.] 

(9)  Kos.  ii.  18  :  The  Lord  makes  in  that  day  a  covenant  with  the  beasts  of  the 
field,  and  with  the  fowls  of  heaven,  and  the  creeping  things  of  the  ground,  that 
they  shall  not  hurt  Israel. 

(10)  Isa.  xi.  6  sq.  :  "  The  wolf  also  shall  dwell  with  the  lamb,  and  the  leopard 
shall  lie  down  with  the  kid,  .  .  .  and  the  lion  shall  eat  straw  like  the  ox"  This 
description  must  not  be  regarded,  as  by  older  theologians,  as  mere  allegory.  [Still, 
it  is  evidently  figurative. — D.] 

(11)  Comp.  Isa.  xxxiii.  24  :  "  The  inhabitant  shall  not  say,  I  am  sick  :  the  peo- 
ple that  dwell  therein  shall  be  forgiven  their  iniquity." 

§225. 

Death  destroyed. 

The  last  enemy  that  shall  be  destroyed  is  death,  in  which  the  penalty  inflicted 
on  mankind  for  sin  culminates.  The  voice  of  weeping  shall  be  no  more  heard  in 
the  new  Jerusalem  (Isa.  Ixv.  19).  Yet  in  this  very  passage,  vers.  20-23,  human  life 
is  only  sujjposed  to  be  of  greater  length,  perhaps  such  as  Genesis  ascribes  to 
primeval  times.  There  shall  be  no  more  an  infant  who  attains  but  a  few  days, 
nor  an  old  man  that  hath  not  filled  his  days  :  he  that  dies  at  a  hundred  years  dies  a 
youth,  and  a  sinner  is  carried  off  at  a  hundred  years,  and  men  are  to  live  as  long  as 
trees.  Here,  then,  a  limitation  of  the  poirer  of  death  is  spoken  of,  and  also  sin  is  still 
represented  as  possible.  On  the  other  hand,  prophecy  rises  in  some  passages  to 
a  declaration  of  the  annihilation  of  death,  and  of  a  resurrection  of  the  dead  (1) .  To  un- 
derstand, however,  i\\e position  of  this  announcement  in  the  doctrinal  system  of  the  Old 
Testament,  we  must  deal  more  particularly  with  the  subject.    The  ultimate  grounds 


512  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PROPHETISM.  [§  225. 

on  which  the  prophetic  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  rests  arc,  Jirst,  the  knowledge 
of  the  living  God,  who  has  power  even  over  death  and  the  regions  of  the  dead,  Dent. 
xxxii.  39,  1  Sam.  ii.  6  (2)  ;  and  proves  that  He  has  this  power  in  those  cases  in  wliich 
He  recalls  the  dead  to  life  at  the  request  of  His  prophets.  It  rests,  secondly, 
upon  the  importance  of  human  perso)iality,  which  is  called  to  communion  with  God 
(see  §  79).  Still  it  is  not  of  the  vanquishing  of  death  in  the  cases  of  individuals 
that  prophecy  chiefly  treats,  but  of  the  eternal  duration  of  the  church.  This  is  guar- 
anteed by  the  eternity  of  God,  who  is  an  inexhaustible  source  of  life  even  to  His  per- 
ishing peojile  (Isa.  xl.  28  sqq.).  When  the  heavens  wax  old  as  doth  a  garment,  and 
are  changed  as  a  vesture,  He  remains  tie  same,  and  therefore  the  seed  of  His  ser- 
vants shall  outlast  these  changes  of  the  universe  (Ps.  cii.  27  sqq.).  And  tliis  very 
fact,  that  the  Church  rises  again  in  renewed  vigor  after  apparent  destruction,  is  also 
represented  as  her  resurrection  from  death.  This  is  done  first  in  two  passages  of 
Hosea,  mz.  vi.  2  and  xiii.  14.  In  the  former,  the  people  are  introduced  as  turning 
to  God  in  their  hour  of.  need,  and  saying,  though  still  in  a  hesitating  manner, 
"After  two  days  He  will  revive  us,  in  the  third"  (i.e.  after  a  short  delay)  "He 
will  raise  ^t,s  up,  and  we  shall  live  before  Him."  That  which  is  here  expressed  as 
the  hope  of  the  people,  the  fulfilment  of  which  cannot  be  promised  in  their  present 
state  of  inconstancy,  appears  in  the  second  passage  as  a  saying  of  God.  The  very 
variously  understood  train  of  ideas  from  ver.  12  onward  is  as  follows  :  The  afilic- 
tions  of  Israel  are  to  be  the  pangs  by  which  a  new  nation  shall  be  born.  But  the 
people  will  not  sufCer  this  to  come  to  pass.  "  They  are  as  an  unwise  son  ;  when 
the  time  is  come,  he  does  not  enter  the  place  of  the  breaking  forth  of  children." 
The  anxiety  for  both  mother  and  Child,  when  it  does  not  come  to  the  birth,  forms 
the  transition  to  ver.  14  :  "I  will  ransom  them  from  the  power  of  the  grave  ;  I 
will  redeem  them  from  death.  O  death,  where  are  thy  plagues?  O  grave,  where 
is  thy  destruction?"  j.^  much  as  to  say,  And  yet  this  peojile  have  a  God  who  is 
capable  of  delivering  them  from  even  such  a  state  of  death,  because  the  powers  of 
death  cannot  prevail  against  Him  (3).  Since,  however,  the  people  resist  their 
deliverance,  it  is  also  added  that  the  storm  of  judgment  shall  sweep  them  away. 
Hence  the  victory  over  death  here  spoken  of  is  merely  hypothetical,  and  assumed 
to  pertain  to  the  church  in  general  (4). 

(1)  Comp.  my  Commentationes  ad  theol.  Nil.  pertinentes,  p.  42  sqq.,  and  my 
article  TlnsterhUcKkeit,  Lehre  des  A.  T.,  in  Herzog's  Real-EncyMop.  xxi.  p.  416  sqq. 
[Also  Kiibel,  art.  "  Aufersterhung"  in  Herzog,  2d  ed.]  Prophecy  confirms  the 
old  doctrine  of  Sheol,  as  appears  from  the  passages  formerly  given  (§  78  sq.). 

(2)  Deut.  xxxii.  39:  "I  kill,  and  I  make  alive."  1  Sam.  ii.  6:  "The  Lord 
killeth,  and  maketh  alive  ;  He  bringeth  down  to  the  grave,  and  bringeth  up." 

(3)  According,  indeed,  to  another  explanation  (so  Simson,  and  an  article  in  tlie 
Zeitschr.  fur  Protest,  und  Kirche,  1854,  xxviii.  p.  124),  Hos.  xiii.  14  would  have 
an  entirely  different  meaning,  its  first  sentence  being  regarded  as  a  question  : 
"  Should  I  ransom  them  from  the  power  of  death  ?"  the  second  as  an  expression 
of  God's  extreme  wrath  witli  the  people,  against  whom  death  and  hell  are  sum- 
moned ("  Come  with  all  your  powers  of  destruction").  But  such  an  explanation 
of  the  first  sentence  is  as  unnatural  as  it  is  improbable  that  'H^  is  to  be  under- 
stood otherwise  tlian  in  ver.  5.  I  rejoice  to  find  that  Keil  has  returned  to  the  old 
interpretation  [in  agreement  with  Hitzig-Steiner  and  Orelli,  p.  268  sqq.,  while 
Bohl  {Christologie  des  A.  T.,  p.  198)  understands  the  death  as  spiritual  death 
■which  they  experience  in  exile]. 


§  226.]  DEATfl   DESTROYED.  513 

(4)  The  saying,  however,  ])oints  significantly  to  an  actiiul  conquest  of  death 
and  the  region  of  the  dead  ;  hence  its  citation,  1  Cor.  xv.  55. 

§  226. 

Continuation. 

The  following  considerations  will  show  the  further  jn'ogress  of  this  doctrine. 
When  Israel  is  restored  and  glorified  in  its  remnant  delivered  out  of  judgments, 
one  enigma  will  nevertheless  remain  unsolved.  Tlie  just  shall  live  by  his  faith, 
Hab.  ii.  2  ;  hence,  when  judgment  is  inflicted,  all  the  just  are,  according  to  Ezek. 
ix.  4,  to  be  distinguished  by  a  mark  from  the  multitudes  who  are  delivered  up  to 
the  destroying  angels  (1).  And  yet  the  same  prophet,  xxi.  3,  8  sq.,  beholds  the 
fire  of  judgment  consuming  both  green  trees  and  dry,  the  sword  of  the  Lord 
slaying  both  the  righteous  and  the  wicked.  Where,  then,  is  the  God  of  right- 
eousness? This  contradiction,  in  which  the  Divine  righteousness  seems  involved, 
is  in  some  degree  relieved  by  the  consideration  that  God  takes  the  righteous  to 
their  rest,  that  they  may  not  experience  the  woes  about  to  be  inflicted,  Isa. 
Ivii.  1  sq.  :  "  He  enters  into  peace  ;  they  rest  in  their  beds  who  walked  straight 
onward"  (so  King  Josiah,  2  Kings  xxii.  20).  But  this  does  not  solve  the 
enigma.  Its  full  solution  can  only  be  furnished  by  the  participation  of  the 
righteous  who  have  departed  in  faith  in  the  promises  of  God,  the  redemption  of 
their  nation,  and  the  consummation  of  that  kingdom  of  God  for  which  they 
waited.  And  here  the  prophecy  Isa.  xxvi.  comes  in.  The  prophet  had  already, 
in  XXV.  8,  declared,  when  speaking  of  the  times  of  redemption,  that  the  Lord 
would  for  ever  annihilate  death,  and  wipe  away  tears  from  all  faces.  This 
implied,  in  the  first  place,  only  the  abolition  of  death  for  the  church  of  that 
period;  but  in  xxvi.  19  the  prophecy  goes  further.  The  train  of  ideas  in  this 
variously  explained  chapter  is,  from  ver.  13  onward,  as  follows  (2)  : — The  people 
formerly  served  other  gods,  not,  as  many  explain  it,  other  human  lords  ;  this 
idolatrous  generation  (not :  that  race  of  tyrants)  is  judged,  and  will  not  rise  again 
from  the  dead.  Jehovah  has  again  increased  the  nation,  but  its  full  redemption, 
by  means  of  the  travail-pains  it  is  enduring,  has  not  yet  come.  The  inhabitants 
of  the  world  "  will  not  be  born,"  i.e.,  according  to  the  context,  wrested  from  the 
realm  of  the  dead  (3).  Hence  the  wish,  ver.  19,  tliat  the  dead  of  God  (4),  the 
corpses  of  the  people,  may  arise  ;  which  wish  quickly  passes  into  the  summons," 
"  Awake  and  sing,  ye  that  dwell  in  the  dust,  for  thy  dew  is  as  the  dew  of  herbs" 
(or,  according  to  others,  of  the  light)  ;  i.e.,  as  dew  revives  the  herbage,  so  does 
the  power  of  God  revive  thee,  and  the  earth  brings  forth  the  shades  (the  dead). 
Till  then  the  people  are  to  wait  quietly.  On  the  day  of  the  final  judgment  for 
which  the  Lord  arises  (ver.  21),  the  earth  discloses  her  blood,  and  no  more  covers 
her  slain  (5)  ;  these  being,  according  to  the  most  probable  explanation,  awakened 
to  new  life,  obtain  their  justification.  That  the  resurrection  (ver.  19)  must  not 
here  be  regarded  as  typical  (as  though  only  the  deliverance  of  the  people  of  God 
from  their  troubles  were  intended),  is  evident  from  the  contrast  in  ver.  14  and  the 
whole  context  (6).  Advancing  to  still  later  prophecy,  we  first  meet  with  Ezekiel's 
vision  of  the  dry  bones,  ch.  xxxvii.  (7).  The  prophet  is  led  in  the  Spirit  into  a 
valley  filled  with  dry  bones.     To  the  Lord's  question,  "  Sou  of  man,  will  these 


614  THE  THEOLOGY  OP  PROPHETlSM.  [§  226. 

bones  live  ?"  he  replies,  "Lord  God,  Thou  knowest  ;"  thus  declaring  the  matter 
to  be  beyond  human  knowledge.  He  then  receives  the  command  to  jjrophecy 
over  the  bones,  ver.  4  sq.  (8).  A  noise  is  now  heard,  and  there  is  a  shaking  (9)  ; 
next  follows  a  reanimation  through  the  agencies  there  indicated,  the  bones  first 
approaching  each  other  and  becoming  covered  with  sinews  and  flesh,  and  then 
the  breath  of  life  coming  from  the  four  winds  into  these  slain,  when  they  stand 
up  reanimated,  an  exceeding  great  army.  "  These  bones,"  it  is  now  said,  vers. 
11-14,  "  are  the  whole  house  of  Israel  (10).  Behold,  they  say.  Our  bones 
are  dried,  and  our  hope  is  lost :  we  are  cut  off.  Therefore  prophesy  and  say 
unto  them,  Thus  saitli  the  Lord  God,  Behold,  O  my  people,  I  will  open  your 
graves,  and  cause  you  to  come  up  out  of  your  graves,  and  bring  you  into  the  land 
of  Israel  ;  then  ye  shall  know  that  I  am  the  Lord  :  and  I  will  put  my  Spirit  in 
you  that  you  may  live,  and  I  will  place  you  in  your  own  land,"  etc.  From  the 
times  of  the  church  fathers  to  the  most  recent  expositors,  it  has  been  disputed 
whether  the  description  in  vers.  1-10  is  to  be  understood  literally  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead,  or  symbolically  of  the  restoration  of  the  covenant  people  (10).  Ac- 
cording to  the  former  view,  it  is  not  the  explanation  but  only  the  application  of  the 
vision  that  is  given  in  vers.  11-14  (11),  which  are  said,  as  Caloviiis  understood 
the  passage,  to  indicate  the  analogy  existing  between  the  restoration  of  Israel 
and  the  future  resurrection  of  the  dead.  But  the  simple  meaning  of  the  words 
requires  that  we  should  regard  these  verses  as  the  ex2)lanatio?i  of  the  preceding 
vision  ;  and  since  at  least  ver.  11  ("  these  bones  are  the  whole  house  of  Israel  "), 
which  declares  the  condition  of  Israel  to  be  that  of  dry  bones,  must  be  symbol- 
ically understood,  it  seems  quite  arbitrary  to  take  ver.  12,  where  it  is  declared  to 
those  who  have  said.  Our  bones  are  dried,  "I  will  open  your  graves,"  etc., 
literally.  In  any  case,  however,  the  vision  is  of  the  greatest  importance  in  the 
development  of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  which,  though  not  resulting 
therefrom  as  its  direct  explanation,  is  yet  implied  by  its  obvious  application. 
Tertullian  had  already  justly  remarked  concerning  this  passage  :  de  vacuo 
similitudo  non  com2)etit ;  de  nidlo  parabola  non  coiwenit.  That  the  power  of  God 
can,  against  all  human  thought  and  hope,  reanimate  the  dead,  is  the  general 
idea  of  the  passage,  from  which  consequently  the  hope  of  a  literal  resurrection  of 
the  dead  may  naturally  be  inferred,  though  the  context  shows  that  this  is  not 
what  is  here  spoken  of.  The  resurrection  of  the  dead  is,  however,  decidedly 
taught  in  Dan.  xii.  In  ver.  1  the  prophet  foretells  "  a  time  of  trouble  such  as 
never  was  since  there  was  a  nation;"  and  continues:  "At  that  time  everyone 
that  is  found  written  in  the  book"  {i.e.  the  book  of  life)  "  shall  be  delivered,  and 
many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake,  some  to  everlasting 
life,  and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt  ;  and  they  that  be  wise  shall 
shine  as  the  brightness  of  the  firmament,  and  they  that  turn  many  to  righteous- 
ness as  the  stars  for  ever  and  ever."  Then  it  is  said  to  Daniel,  ver.  13,  "Go  thou 
thy  way  till  the  end  ;  for  thou  shalt  rest,  and  rise  to  thy  lot  at  the  end  of  the 
days."  According  to  the  connection  of  xii.  3  with  xi.  33,  35,  the  promise  of  a 
resurrection  to  life  (comp.  Isa.  xxvi.  19)  is  made  especially  with  reference  to  those 
who  have  maintained  their  fidelity  to  God  by  a  confessor's  death.  The  expression 
"many,"  however,  must  not  be  taken  in  a  partial  sense  (12).  It  is  not  used  in 
opposition  to  those  who  do  not  rise,  but  merely  as  expressing  a  great  number 


i  226.]  DEATH   DESTROYED.  515 

(13).  The  resurrection  of  the  ungodly  first  appears  in  Daniel,  tlionyh  the  transi- 
tion to  it  is  formed  by  Isa.  Ixvi.  24.  When  it  is  there  said  of  tlie  corpses  of  the 
rebels,  whom  the  Lord  has  punished  by  fire  and  sword  (ver.  16),  that  they  lie 
outside  the  city  of  God,  suffering  eternal  torments,  "  their  worm  shall  not  die, 
neither  shall  their  fire  be  quenched,  and  they  shall  be  an  abhorring  unto  all  flesh," 
it  is  evidently  assumed  that  the  corpses  are  still  endued  with  sensation.  In  the 
passage  in  Daniel,  xii.  2,  the  word  X^^^}..  is  used,  which  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the 
Old  Testament  except  in  the  passage  in  Isaiali ;  hence  it  is  not  improbable  that 
the  passage  in  Daniel  refers  to  that  in  Isaiah.  Daniel  is  speaking  only  of  a  resur- 
rection of  Israel,  not  of  that  of  all  men  ;  the  latter  not  being  expressly  mentioned 
in  the  Old  Testament,  though  an  allusion  to  it  might  be  found  in  the  formerly 
discussed  passage  (§  199),  Isa.  xxiv.  22,  where,  as  this  obscure  saying  may  be 
more  particularly  understood,  a  bringing  forth  of  the  kings  still  confined  in  the 
pit  {i.e.  in  the  region  of  the  dead)  is  spoken  of,  while,  on  the  other  side,  it  is  said 
of  the  Chaldeans  in  Jer.  li.  39,  57,  that  they  should  sleep  a  perpetual  sleep  and 
not  wake.  These  are,  however,  expressions  which  can  scarcely  be  urged  to 
establish  a  doctrine. 

(1)  Ezekiel  most  emphatically  declares,  ch.  xviii.,  that  every  one  shall  be  recom- 
pensed according  to  his  righteousness. 

(2)  Isa.  xxvi.  8-12  :  The  prophet  expresses,  in  the  name  of  the  righteous,  their 
desire  for  the  day  when  God's  judgments  shall  fall  upon  the  sinful  world,  that 
sinners  may  at  length  behold  the  greatness  of  the  Lord  and  His  zeal  for  His 
people.     They  desire,  however,  that  He  may  send  redemption  to  His  people. 

(3)  VSJ?  in  Ter.  19  shows  the  proper  sense  of  the  word  HD;  in  Isa.  xxvi.  18.  Un- 
doubtedly ^3.J  is  not  Urth  in  general,  but  miscarriage.  The  expression,  however, 
implies  a  violent  wresting.  The  event  does  not  take  place  in  the  ordinary  course 
of  nature  :  the  dead  must  be  torn  by  force  from  the  world  below,  and  this  the 
people  were  not  capable  of  effecting. 

(4)  For  thus  must  -ynn  be  understood  (see  Bottcher,  de  inferis,  §  445),  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  dead  of  the  faithless  generation.     [So  also  Orelli,  p.  339.] 

(5)  The  connection  with  what  precedes  makes  it  probable  that  by  D'.?'''n,  in 
Isa.  xxvi.  21,  we  must  understand  God's  dead  ones,  mentioned  ver.  18,  whose 
blood,  having  been  till  now  unavenged,  is  thus  placed  on  a  level  with  the  blood 
of  one  put  to  death  for  his  sins. 

(6)  Even  ver.  21  does  not  merely  signify  that  those  who  have  been  put  to  death 
when  innocent  are  to  take  vengeance  on  their  enemies  at  the  last  judgment. 

(7)  The  occasion  of  the  vision  in  Ezek.  xxxvii.  is  alluded  to  in  ver.  11.  The 
people  were  sunk  so  low  that  they  considered  a  restoration,  such  as  the  prophet 
announced  in  ch.  xxxvi.,  absolutely  inconceivable.  Itwasto  meet  this  despair 
that  the  revelation  was  given  to  the  prophet. 

(8)  Ezek.  xxxvii  4  sq.  :  "Ye  dry  bones,  hear  the  word  of  the  Lord.  Behold,  I 
will  cause  breath  (nn)  to  enter  into  you,  that  ye  may  live  :  and  I  will  lay  sinews 
upon  you,  and  will  bring  up  fiesh  upon  you,  and  cover  you  with  skin,  and  put 
breath  in  you,  that  ye  may  live,  and  ye  shall  know  that  I  am  the  Lord." 

(9)  According  to  Hitzig  and  Kliefoth,  an  earthquake  (LXX  cEi(7fi6c),  which  it 
is,  however,  purely  arbitrary  to  identify  with  that  of  xviii.  19,  in  which  the  power 
of  Gog  is  destroyed.  . 

(10)  By  which  some  understand  merely  the  revival  of  Israel  from  civil  death  to  a 
new  political  existence,  others  its  restoration  from  spiritual  death,  its  spiritual  re- 
vival,—a  difference  which  may  be  reconciled  by  the  fact  that,  according  to  xxxvi. 
27  sq'.,  and  xxxvii.  21  sqq.,  the  restoration  of  Israel  as  the  people  of  God  under  the 
rule  of  the  Messiah,  of  a  truly  sanctified  community,  is  treated  of.     [Comp.  Orelli, 


516  THE  THEOLOGY   OF   PROPHETISM.  [§  22'?. 

p.  414  sq.  :  the  vision  promises  "the  awaking  of  the  church  from  its  present  con- 
dition of  external  dissolution  and  internal  estrangement  from  God,  which  to  human 
view  appeared  utterly  impossible."]  After  the  almost  exclusive  adoption  of  the 
symbolical  meaning  in  recent  times,  Hitzig  and  Kliefoth  have  again  revived  the 
literal  acceptation.  [But  the  most  recent  commentaries  of  Smend  and  Keil, 
2d  ed.  adopt  the  symbolical  interjjretation.] 

(11)  Kliefoth,   in  his  Commentary,  i.  p.   370,  calls  it  "a  consolatory  address 
based  upon  the  matter  of  the  vision,  and  applying  it  to  a  definite  point." 

(12)  According  to  the  accentuation,  the  jP  before  "'Jii'rP  is  dependent  not  upon 
Q'3"!  but  ^Tpl.     [So  Orelli,  p.  527,  sq.] 

(13)  See  especially  Hofmann,  Weissagung  und  Erfullung,  i.  p.  314,  Q.ndi  Schrift- 
heweis,  ii.  p.  598. 


II.    THE   ADMIBSION   OP  THE   HEATHEN   INTO  THE   KINGDOM  OF  GOD. 

§  227. 
The  Extension  of  the  Kingdom  of  Ood  in  the  Times  of  Redemption. 

The  opposition  of  the  heathen  world  to  the  divinely  purposed  kingdom  of  God, 
is  subdued  by  the  destructive  judgment  inflicted  on  it.  But  this  judgment  is  to 
have  also  a  positive  result.  When  it  is  over,  says  Zeph.  iii.  9,  "  I  will  turn  to  the 
people  clean  lips"  (for  their  lips  had  been  hitherto  polluted  by  the  invocation  of 
idols),  "  that  they  may  all  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord,  to  serve  Him  with  one 
shoulder"  {i.e.  bear  the  same  yoke).  As,  however,  Israel  is  to  be  restored  only  in 
its  sifted  remnant,  so  also  it  is  only  the  remnant  of  the  heathen  rescued  from 
judgment  who  do  homage  to  the  Lord.  1Jll3n-73,  it  is  said,  Zech.  xiv.  16, 
"Every  one  that  is  left  of  all  the  nations,"  these  shall  go  up  to  worship  before  the 
Lord,  and  to  keep  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  This  thought  is  carried  out  by  the 
prophets  with  respect  also  to  a  series  of  individual  nations,  viz.  those  who  have 
shown  themselves  most  hostile  toward  Israel,  nay,  whose  reception  among  the 
covenant  people  was  in  Old  Testament  times  forbidden  by  the  law,  Deut.  xxiii.  4 
(§  82.  8).  Comp.  e.g.  the  predictions  of  Jeremiah  concerning  heathen  nations — 
Moab,  eh.  xlviii.  (1)  ;  and  Ammon,  xlix.  6  ;  also  the  prophecy  concerning  the 
remnant  of  the  Philistines,  Zech.  ix.  7  ('irribxh  Nin  DJ  '^W)\).  To  the  intuition 
of  the  older  prophets,  this  enlargement  of  the  kingdom  of  God  by  the  admission 
of  the  heathen  is  first  of  all  an  extension  of  the  theocracy  as  it  existed  under  David 
and  Solomon,  when  heathen  nations  were  subject  to  the  sceptre  of  the  theocratic 
king.  This  is  shown  particularly  in  the  passage  Amos  ix.  11  sq.  :  "In  that  day 
will  I  raise  up  the  tabernacle  of  David  that  is  fallen,  and  close  up  the  breaches 
thereof  ;  and  I  will  raise  up  his  ruins,  and  I  will  build  it  as  in  the  days  of  old, 
that  they  may  possess  the  remnant  of  Edom,  and  of  all  the  heathen  upon  whom 
my  name  is  named,  saith  the  Lord  that  doeth  this"  (2).  According  to  a  now 
widely  accepted  explanation  (Hitzig,  Anger,  and  similarly  Orelli),  the  last  words 
are  said  to  signify  :  upon  whom  my  name  was  once  called,  i.e.  as  that  of  their 
conqueror.  But  the  expression :  The  name  of  the  Lord  is  named  upon  a  people, 
never  denotes  this  external  possession  by  Him,  but  always  a  relation  of  internal 
fellowship  ;  comp.  such  passages  as  Deut.  xxviii.  9  sq.  (§  56,  note  4)  ;  and  hence 
the  ferfectum  ^"^Q}  must  be  taken  as  tlie  futurum  exactum,  as  a  declaration  of  the 


§  237.]  EXTENSION   OF  THE   KINGDOM   OF   GOD.  517 

position  these  uations  will  enter  into  with  respect  to  the  kiugdom  of  God.  (The 
admission,  however,  of  the  heathen  nations  into  the  kingdom  of  God  is  here  ex- 
pressed in  a  quite  indefinite  manner,  the  historical  horizon  of  this  j^rophet  being 
still  limited.)  On  the  other  hand,  w-e  are  placed  upon  the  heights  of  prophetic 
intuition  in  the  descriptions  of  the  latter  days  given  Isa.  ii.  2-4,  and  Mic.  iv.  1-4. 
All  nations  are  going  to  Zion,  which  is  spiritually  elevated  above  all  the  mountains 
of  the  world,  to  receive  there  the  Divine  Liw  as  the  rule  of  their  lives,  while  uni- 
versal peace  prevails  under  the  rule  of  Jehovah  (3).  But  it  is  especially  in  the 
Book  of  Isaiah,  xl.-lxvi.,  that  the  mission  of  Israel  as  the  servant  of  the  Lord,  to 
be  the  medium  of  revelation  to  all  mankind,  forms  one  of  the  fundamental  thoughts. 
The  niri]  n^j;  is  Israel  as  the  covenant  people,  xli.  8  sq.,  xliv.  1  sqq.,  comp.  Jer. 
XXX.  10,  xlvi.  27  sq.,  and  in  a  twofold  aspect :  On  the  one  hand,  the  nation  as  it 
actually  appeared,  the  blind  and  deaf  servant  of  the  Lord,  seeing  many  things  but 
observing  not,  having  open  ears  but  hearing  not,  and  for  such  unfaithfulness  in- 
curring judgment,  and  falling  into  a  state  of  utter  ruin,  Isa.  xlii:  18-25  ;  on  the 
other,  the  servant  is  Israel  according  to  its  ideal,  as  a  nation  true  to  its  Divine 
calling  (corap.  Ps.  xxiv.  6  :  Jacob  =  the  generation  of  those  who  seek  God's  face), 
and  in  this  respect  differing  from  the  nation  as  it  actually  appeared,  though  at  the 
same  time  one  with  it.  The  figure,  moreover,  represents  first  the  servants  of  God 
collectively,  that  ^p^*'  j"l"\>?"^  (§  233.  1)  from  which  the  holy  seed  proceeds  (see  es- 
pecially Isa.  Ixv.  8  sq.)  wliich  is  to  form  the  stock  of  the  new  church,  and  then  cul- 
minates in  an  individual  (see  §  233).  This  servant,  the  ideal  Israel,  is  accordingly 
called,  according  to  xlii.  4,  to  establish  judgment  in  the  earth,  and  the  isles  wait  for 
his  law.  He  is  the  light  of  the  Gentiles,  ver.  6  ;  through  him  the  salvation  of  the 
Lord  is  to  penetrate  to  the  end  of  the  earth,  xlix.  6,  comp.  with  li.  5.  In  these 
passages,  as  well  as  in  ii.  2-4,  it  is  to  be  remarked  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  now 
no  longer  to  be  extended,  as  in  older  prophecy,  by  force  of  arms,  but  by  the  word. 
While  darkness  still  covers  the  earth,  and  gross  darkness  the  nations,  the  glory  of 
the  Lord  arises  upon  Zion,  and  nations  and  kings  then  walk  in  this  light,  ch,  Ix. 
etc.  The  new  temple  in  Jerusalem  is  thus  called  a  house  of  prayer  for  all  nations, 
Ivi.  7.  The  latter  passage,  Ivi.  3-7,  is  also  worthy  of  notice  in  another  respect  (4). 
It  has  already  been  remarked  that  the  law,  Deut.  xxiii.  4,  which  excluded  certain 
nations  from  the  theocracy,  was  abrogated  to  prophetic  intuition.  But  here  the 
law,  Deut.  xxiii.  2,  which  excluded  eunuchs  from  the  kingdom  of  God,  is  also 
abolished,  while  that  in  ver.  8  of  the  same  chapter,  by  which  no  IJOO  was  ad- 
mitted into  the  church,  is  annulled  (§  82.  2)  by  Zech.  ix.  6. 

In  this  consummation  of  redemption,  the  theocratic  relation  in  which  Jehovah 
in  Old  Testament  times  stood  to  Israel,  is  transferred  to  all  mankind.  The  Lord 
has  become  the  King  of  all  nations,  Zech.  xiv.  16  sq.  (ver.  9),  comp.  with  Isa. 
xxiv.  28,  Ps.  xcvi.  10,  xcvii.  1  (Ps.  xciii.  99,  Obad.  21).  All  the  treasures  of  the 
world,  all  the  most  precious  possessions  of  the  Gentiles,  now  conduce  to  the  glory 
of  the  Divine  kingdom,  and  are  used  for  the  adornment  of  the  city  and  temple  of 
God,  etc.  ;  comp.  what  is  already  said,  Isa.  xxiii.  18,  with  reference  to  restored 
Tyre,  but  especially  Isa.  Ix.  9-11,  and  Hag.  ii.  7,  where  Luther's  beautiful  trans- 
lation, ''da  soil  dann  kommen  aller  ITeiden  TrosV  (then  shall  the  consolation  of  all 
the  heathen  come;  A.  V.  "the  desire  of  all  nations"),  is  incorrect,  the  niOO 


518  THE  THEOLOGY   OF   PROPHETISM.  [§  228. 

Dl'Un-Ss  signifying,  according  to  the  connection  with  ver.  8,  the  precious  things 
of  all  the  nations  of  the  world. 

(1)  Jer.  xlviii.  42,  it  was  said,  "  Moab  shall  be  destroyed  from  being  a  people, 
because  he  hath  magnified  himself  against  the  Lord  ;"  but  then,  ver.  47,  "I  will 
bring  again  the  captivity  of  Moab  in  the  latter  days."  [This  difference  in  the 
point  of  view  concerning  Moab  and  Amnion  in  Deuteronomy  and  Jeremiah 
does  not  favor  the  theory  that  Deuteronomy  was  composed  in  the  age  of  Jeremiah 
and  in  a  circle  akin  to  his.] 

(2)  There  is  here  a  reference  to  the  days  of  David,  during  which  Israel  ruled 
over  the  neighboring  nations,  especially  the  Edomites.  The  latter  afterward 
profited  by  the  decline  of  tlie  kingdom  of  Judah  to  regain  their  independence. 
When,  then,  the  judgment  announced  by  the  prophet  in  ch.  i.  has  been  inflicted, 
the  rinXii'  of  Edom  is  to  be  incorporated  into  the  tlicocracy,  together  with  all  the 
nations  upon  whom  the  name  of  Jehovah  is  named. 

(3)  Mic.  iv.  1-3  :  "  In  the  last  days  it  shall  come  to  pass, that  the  mountain  of 
the  house  of  the  Lord  shall  be  established  in  the  top  of  the  mountains,  and  it  shall 
be  exalted  above  the  hills  ;  and  the  nations  shall  flow  unto  it.  And  many  nations 
shall  come  and  say.  Come  and  let  us  go  up  to  the  mountain  of  the  Lord,  and  to  the 
house  of  the  God  of  Jacob,  that  He  may  teach  us  of  His  ways,  and  we  may  walk 
in  His  paths  ;  for  the  law  shall  go  forth  of  Zion,  and  the  word  of  the  Lord  from 
Jerusalem.  And  He  shall  judge  between  many  nations,  and  arbitrate  for  strong 
nations  afar  ofl:.  Then  shall  they  beat  their  swords  into  plowshares,  and  their 
spears  into  pruning-hooks  :  nation  shall  not  lift  up  a  sword  against  nation,  neither 
shall  they  learn  war  any  more." 

(4)  Isa.  Ivi.  3-7  :  "Let  not  the  stranger  that  hath  joined  himself  to  the  Lord, 
speak,  saying,  The  Lord  hath  utterly  separated  me  from  His  people  ;  neither  let 
the  eunuch  say.  Behold,  I  am  a  dry  tree.  For  thus  saith  the  Lord  unto  the  eunuchs 
that  keep  my^  Sabbaths  and  choose  the  things  that  please  me,  ...  To  them  will 
I  give  in  my  house  and  within  my  walls  a  place  and  a  name  better  than  of  sons  and 
of  daughters  ;  I  will  give  them  an  everlasting  name,  that  shall  not  be  cut  off." 
It  is  further  said  by  the  prophet  to  all  strangers  who  serve  the  Lord  and  love  His 
name,  that  He  will  make  them  joyful  in  His  house  of  prayer,  that  their  burnt- 
offerings  and  sacrifices  shall  be  accepted  upon  His  altar,  "/w  mine  house  shall  ie 
called  a  house  of  prayer  for  all  nations.'''' 


§  238. 

The  Conditions  under  which  the  Admission  of  the  Heathen  into  the  Kingdom  of  Ood 

is  to  taJce  place. 

The  coming  of  this  kingdom  of  God  which  embraces  all  nations,  is,  how^ever, 
as  is  evident  from  the  passages  quoted,  combined,  according  to  prophetic 
intuition,  with  the  fact  tJiat  Israel  is  to  remain  the  ^nediatory  nation  at  the  head  of 
the  nations,  and  Jerusalem  with  its  temple  to  form  the  central  point  ot  tne  kin'g- 
dom  to  which  the  nations  are  to  journey.  The  heathen  now  do  homage  to  this 
once  despised  and  ill-used  people.  To  be  named  after  Israel  is  now  a  title  of 
honor,  Isa.  xliv.  5  :  the  heathen  shall  fall  down  and  surrender  themselves  as  vas- 
sals to  Israel,  "for  God  is  in  thee,  and  there  is  none  other  God,"  xlv.  14,  comp. 
•with  Mic.  vii.  16  sq.  and  other  passages  (1).  On  the  other  hand,  the  incorpora- 
tion of  the  heathen  in  the  kingdom  of  God  is  in  Ps.  Ixxxvii.  represented  as  their 
acquisition  of  rights  of  citizenship  in  Jerusalem  (2),  to  which  also  the  passage  Isa. 
Ivi.  3  sq.  (§  227,  note  4)  refers.     It  is,  moreover,  worthy  of  remark,  that  in  cer- 


§  228.]  CONDITiOXS   OV   admission    of   the    TiEATIlEN.  610 

tain  imssages  it  is  predicted  that  after  the  Jews  liavc  l)ocn  restored  to  tlic  Holy 
Land,  and  have  allied  themselves  witii  the  Gentiles,  the  latter  will  assist  in  bring- 
ing back  those  members  of  the  covenant  people  who  are  still  scattered  in  the 
world,  and  thus  become  instrumental  in  the  complete  restoration  of  Israel.  This 
is  contained  in  Isa.  xi.  10  sqq.,  xiv.  1  sq.,  xlix.  22,  and  in  Zeph.  iii.  10,  according 
to  the  probable  interpretation  :  "My  worshippers  (subject)  shall  bring  as  an  of- 
fering the  daughters  of  my  dispersion  (object),  (my  dispersed  children,  the  mem- 
bers of  the  covenant  people)"  (3).  A  similar  prediction  is  also  found  in  Isa.  Ixvi. 
18-21,  a  passage  which  indeed  signifies  more,  but  whose  most  probable  explana- 
tion must  nevertheless  be,  that  those  lieathen,  preserved  from  the  judgments  in- 
flicted on  the  nations,  now  go  forth  as  Jehovah's  messengers  to  all  nations,  to 
bring  the  brethren  of  this  people  as  an  offering  to  Jehovah  ;  thougli  the  other  ex- 
planation, that  these  messengers  will  bring  as  an  offering  to  God  the  rest  of  the 
remnant  of  the  heathen  nations  as  their  brethren,  is  certainly  admissible.  The  rites 
of  worship  in  this  future  and  enlarged  kingdom  of  God  are  connected,  in  respect 
to  sacrifice  and  festival,  with  the  Old  Testament  ritual.  It  has  already  been 
shown  (§  201),  that  prophecy  does  not  contemplate  the  abolition  of  sacrifice  in 
the  coming  period  of  salvation.  It  will  suffice  here  to  call  to  ndnd  that  in  the 
house  of  prayer  for  all  nations,  of  Isa.  Ivi.  7,  sacrifices  are,  according  to  the  same 
passage,  also  offered  ;  that  Ixvi.  28  declares  that  from  one  new  moon  to  another, 
and  from  one  Sabbath  to  another,  all  flesh  shall  come  to  worship  before  the  Lord, 
etc.  ;  and  that,  according  to  Zech.  xiv.  16-19,  all  nations  must  go  up  annually  to 
keep  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  which  is  here  spoken  of  in  its  historical  meaning, 
comp.  §  156.  Still  there  is  no  lack  of  projjhetic  passages  in  which  the  limitations 
of  the  Old  Testament  ritual  are  broken  through.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  those 
which  have  been  generally  claimed  to  support  this  assertion  decidedly  fail  to  do 
so,  e  g.  Isa.  Ixvi.  1-3  :  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  The  heaven  is  my  throne,  and  the 
earth  is  my  footstool :  where  is  the  house  that  ye  build  unto  me  ?  and  where  is 
the  place  of  my  rest  ?  .  .  .  He  that  killeth  an  ox  is  as  if  he  slew  a  man  ;  he  that 
sacrificeth  a  lamb,  as  if  he  cut  off  a  dog's  neck  ;  he  that  ollereth  an  oblation,  as 
if  he  offered  swine's  blood."  Can  this  mean  (says  Umbreit)  that  there  will  be 
no  temple  in  the  new  Jerusalem — that  no  sacrifice  will  be  offered  ?  How  can 
such  a  fact  be  reconciled  with  Ivi.  7,  etc.  ?  Nor  does  the  passage  mean  (as  Hitzig 
and  Knobel  understand  it)  that  the  Lord  will  not  suffer  a  temple  to  be  built  to 
Him  in  Babylon,  for  the  context  shows  that  these  words  are  (as  Delitzsch  justly 
regards  them)  addressed  to  the  rebellious  and  sinful  mass  of  the  people,  who  even 
in  captivity  were  occupied  with  the  thought  of  the  future  temple  they  purposed 
to  build  at  Jerusalem.  From  them  the  Lord  will  accept  no  temple,  and  the  more 
so  that  He  stands  in  no  need  of  one,  and  that  their  sacrifices  would  only  be  the 
greatest  abomination  to  Him.  "We  have  next,  on  the  contrary,  to  notice  two  other 
most  remarkable  prophetic  passages,  of  which  the  interpretation  is  more  certain, 
and  in  which  the  connection  with  the  place  of  worship  in  Jerusalem  is  effaced. 
The  first  is  Mai.  i.  11,  a  passage  quoted  times  witliout  number  by  the  Fathers, 
and  claimed  by  Roman  Catholic  theologians  as  the  chief  passage  in  favor  of  the 
sacrifice  of  the  mass.  "From  the  rising  of  the  sun  even  unto  the  going  down  of 
the  same,"  says  the  prophet  to  those  Jews  who  dishonored  the  Lord  by  their  im- 
pure offerings,  "  my  name  is  great  among  the  Gentiles  ;  and  in  every  place  incense 


520  THE   THEOLOGY    OP    PftOI'HETtSM.  [§  228. 

is  offered  unto  my  name,  and  a  pure  offering  :  for  my  name  is  great  among  tlio 
heathen,  saith  the  Lord  of  Plosts."  According  to  an  explanation  defended  by 
Hitzig,  and  even  by  Kohler,  the  passage  refers  to  the  times  of  the  prophet,  and 
is  said  to  show  that  he  regarded  Ormuzd,  Zeus,  etc.,  as  only  different  names  of 
the  one  true  God,  of  Jehovah,  and  therefore  considered  even  heathen  sacrifices 
as  offered  to  Him.  Such  a  view  is  from  an  Old  Testament  standpoint  absolutely 
impossible  (4).  Every  other,  however,  which  refers  this  passage  to  the  time 
then  present  is  lost  in  a  maze  of  subtleties.  It  is  only  in  appearance  that  the 
prophet,  who  transposes  himself  to  those  times  when  the  Lord  will  be  manifested 
among  all  the  heathen,  speaks  of  the  present ;  and  what  is  most  remarkable  in 
his  words  is  that  they  predict  a  sacrificial  service  among  all  nations  in  all  parts  of 
the  world.  Side  by  side  with  this  may  be  jilaced  the  noted  prophecy  concerning 
Egypt  in  Isa.  xix.,  which  speaks  of  a  worshiji  of  Jehovah  instituted  not  by  Israel- 
ites but  by  Egyi^tians  (5),  and  indeed  in  the  land  of  Egypt.  This  worship  is, 
moreover,  also  regarded  in  ver.  19  as  sacrificial.  This  prophecy,  however,  goes 
still  further ;  for  at  its  close,  ver.  23,  it  makes  those  very  nations,  viz.  Assyria 
and  Egypt,  which  represent  the  hostile  secular  powers,  as  in  the  latter  days  co- 
ordinate witli  Israel  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  "  In  that  day  there  shall  be  a  high- 
way out  of  Egypt  to  Assyria  (6),  that  Assyria  may  come  to  Egypt,  and  Egypt  to 
Assyria ;  and  Egypt  shall  serve  (sc.  Jehovah)  with  Assyria.  In  that  day  shall 
Israel  be  the  third  with  Egypt  and  with  Assyria,  a  blessing  in  the  midst  of  the 
land,  each  of  whom  the  Lord  of  Hosts  shall  bless,  saying.  Blessed  be  Egypt  my 
people,  and  Assyria  the  work  of  my  hands  (7),  and  Israel  mine  inheritance." 
Thus  did  the  spirit  of  prophecy  struggle  to  overcome  particularism  by  exhibiting 
the  Divine  purpose  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God.  [It  is  sufficient  to  observe 
that  under  the  form  of  conception  in  respect  to  sacrifice  and  temple-worship,  to 
which  the  author  refers,  we  are  to  understand  the  prophets  as  speaking,  5n  ac- 
cordance with  the  language  of  their  time,  of  the  spiritual  worship  to  be  offered  to 
the  true  God. — D.] 

(1)  See  also  Dan.  vii.  27  :  "The  kingdom  and  dominion,  and  the  greatness  of 
the  kingdom  under  the  whole  heaven,  shall  be  given  to  the  people  of  the  saints  of 
the  Most  High." 

(2)  Ps.  Ixxxvii.  3  sqq.  :  "Glorious  things  are  spoken  of  thee,  O  city  of  God. 
I  will  proclaim  Rahab  (Egypt)  and  Babylon  as  those  that  know  me  ;  behold, 
Philistia  and  Tyre,  with  Ethiopia  :"  of  each  of  the  above-nnmed  nations  it  will 
be  said,  "This  man  was  born  there"  (is  inscribed  in  the  register  of  births  there 
kept).  "  And  of  Zion  it  shall  be  said,  This  and  that  man  was'born  m  her"  (people 
from  all  nations)  ;  "  and  the  Highest  shall  establish  her.  The  Lord  shall  count, 
when  He  writeth  up  the  people,  that  this  man  was  born  there." 

(3)  [So  Keil  and  Anger  :  but  Hitzig,  followed  by  Kleinert  and  Orelli  (p.  359), 
"  My  worshippers — namely,  the  congregation  of  my  dispersed  ones — shall  bring  my 
offerings."  The  passage  would  then  speak  of  a  diaspora  of  worshippers  of  Jeho- 
vah belonging  to  the  heathen  world.  ] 

(4)  Besides,  the  honoringof  God's /iawe  is  spoken  of,  which  always  presupposes 
Divine  revelation  (§  56). 

(5)  As  though  the  prediction  had  been  smuggled  into  the  text  of  Isaiah  (by 
Onias)  in  favor  of  the  sanctuary  at  Leontopolis. 

(6)  The  roads  on  which  Old  Testament  times  conquerors  had  so  often  marched, 
are  now  to  serve  for  the  peaceful  intercourse  of  the  nations  admitted  into  the 
kingdom  of  God. 


§  229.]  VIEW    OF   THE   CONSUMMATION    OF   REDEMPTION,  ETC.  621 

(7)  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  Assyria  and  Egypt  here  receive  the  same  appella- 
tions which  in  the  Old  Testament  express  the  special  prerogatives  of  Israel. 


III.    THE   MESSIAH    (1). 

§229. 

Twofold  View  of  the  Consummation  of  Redemption.     The  Word  Messiah.    The  Hoots 
of  the  Messiaiiic  Uope  in  the  Pentateuch. 

The  consummation  of  redemption  is,  according  to  proplietic  intuition,  intro- 
duced on  the  one  hand  by  the  personal  coming  of  Jehotah  m  llis  glory,  but  on  the 
other  by  the  coming  of  a  King  of  the  race  of  David,  the  Messiah  (comp.  §  216.  3). 
The  former  view  prevails  in  a  great  number  of  passages.  Jehovah  appears,  amidst 
the  rejoicings  of  all  creation,  to  set  up  His  kingdom  upon  earth,  Ps.  xlvi.  lOsqq., 
xcviii.  7  sqq.  He  manifests  Himself  to  His  people  as  when  in  tlie  ancient  days, 
He  brought  them  forth  out  of  Egypt,  as  the  Redeemer,  the  good  Shepherd,  who 
again  takes  into  His  own  hand  the  conduct  of  His  scattered  sheep,  whom  He 
collects  and  brings  back,  Isa.  xxxv.  4  sqq.,  xl.  10  sq..  Hi.  13,  Ezek.  xxxiv.  11.  sqq., 
etc.  It  is  Jehovah  Himself -who  then  takes  up  His  dwelling  upon  Zion,  and  thence 
rules  over  all  nations,  Zech.  xiv.  16,  fills  the  new  temple  with  His  glory,  Ezek.  xliii. 
2,  7,  nay,  shines  as  a  constant  light  over  the  whole  city  of  God,  and  protects  it,  v. 
5,  as  a  fiery  wall  about  it,  Zech.  ii.  9,  etc.  So  substantial  and  appreciable  will 
this  future,  compared  with  the  former  indwelling  of  God  in  His  church,  be,  that 
the  ark  of  the  covenant  will  no  longer  be  the  vehicle  of  the  Divine  presence, — nay, 
it  shall  not  even  come  to  mind,  because  Jerusalem  will  have  become  the  throne  of 
God,  Jer.  iii.  16  sq.  But  while  prophecy  thus  regards  the  communion  into  which 
God  will  in  the  times  of  redemption  enter  with  His  people  as  of  the  most  direct 
possible  kind,  it  on  the  other  hand  comparatively  annuls  tins  directness  by  another 
view,  which  runs  parallel  with  the  former.  According  to  this  view,  a  distin- 
guished instrument  of  Jehovah,  ViSon  of  David,  in  whom  Jehovah  rules  and  blesses 
His  people,  is  the  medium  by  whom  the  consummation  of  redemption  and  the 
kingdom  of  God  is  brought  to  pass.  The  two  views  are  placed  in  juxtaposition 
in  Ezek.  xxxiv.  The  Lord  there  declares  himself  against  the  unfaithful  shepherds 
of  His  people,  who  have  suffered  them  to  perish.  He  will,  it  is  at  first  said  in  ver.  11 
sqq., fl'ms^'// undertake  the  care  of  the  sheep.  But  then  the  prophecy  turns  directly 
in  ver.  23  to  the  other  view  :  "  I  will  set  up  one  shepherd  over  them,  and  he  shall 
feed  them,  even  my  servant  David  ;  for  he  shall  feed  them,  and  he  shall  be  their 
shepherd."  Then  in  ver.  24  the  two  views  are  thus  connected  :  *'  1  the  Lord  will 
will  be  their  God,  and  my  servant  David  a  prince  among  them"  (2).  Now  this 
son  of  David  in  whom  Old  Testament  prophecy  culminates  is  the  Messiah.  The 
word  n''r'?,  LXX  xo^'y-oc  is  used  in  the  Old  Testament  first  as  the  designation  of 
every  one  anointed  with  the  holy  anointing  oil,  e.g.  in  the  Pentateuch  of  the  high 
priest  (see  §  96) ;  then,  anointing  being  the  vehicle  of  spiritual  gifts,  symbolic- 
ally, e.g.  Ps.  cv.  15,  where  it  is  used,  as  parallel  with  K'3J,  of  the  organs  of  revela- 
tion in  general.  But  especially  is  "The  Lord's  anointed"  the  title  of  the  theo- 
cratic king  (§  163)  ;  and  on  this  account  it  became,  chiefly  by  reason  of  the 


523  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    PROPHETISM.  [§  220. 

passages  Ps.  ii.  2,  Dan.  ix.  25,  the  proper  name  of  that  descendant  of  David  who 
was  to  achieve  complete  redemption,  and  bring  to  its  consummation  the  kingdom 
of  God  (3). 

The  Messianic  hope  had  already  struck  root  in  a  series  of  passages  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch ;  hence  our  representation  of  the  Messianic  idea  must  start  from  these.  It 
is  true  that  the  tzpurov  EvayyEMov  of  Gen.  iii.  15  (§  19,  with  note  3)  does  not  speak 
of  the  seed  of  the  woman  who  is  to  bruise  the  serpent's  head  as  an  individual. 
The  passage  declares  that  the  contest  with  evil,  to  which  the  human  race  is  now 
exposed,  shall  issue  in  the  victory  of  the  latter,  though  this  shall  not  be  obtained 
without  injury  (4).  In  the  promises  met  with  in  the  histories  of  the  patriarchs, 
the  i'"lT-  o^  Abraham  (xii.  3,  xviii.  18,  xxii.  18),  Isaac  (xxvi,  4),  and  Jacob  (xxviii. 
14),  in  whom  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  are  to  bless  themselves  (comp.  §  23,  with 
note  5),  is  not,  as  many  expositors  insist,  merely  an  individual.  The  expression  re- 
fers to  the  entire  race  of  Abraham  as  the  recipients  of  revelation,  though  these 
promises  have  their  final  fulfilment  in  Christ  (5).  On  the  other  hand,  many  mod- 
ern writers  (so  Hengstenberg)  regard  Shiloh  in  ch.  xlix.  10  as  a  personal  proper 
name,  viz.  as  the  designation  of  the  Prince  of  Peace  who  is  to  proceed  from  Judah, 
— "  Till  Shiloh  come,  and  to  Him  is  the  obedience  of  the  people," — a  view  which, 
though  certainly  opposed  by  the  Parallelismus  membrorum,  is  still  possible,  and 
in  any  case  preferable  to  that  which  regards  T\Tp  as  that  town  in  the  tribe  of 
Ephraim  which  was  in  the  time  of  the  judges  (§  158)  the  central  point  of  the  the- 
ocracy (even  Delitzsch  rendering  "  till  he  come  to  Shiloli").  The  passage  is,  how- 
ever, probably  to  be  explained  by  taking  m'^  appellatively,  of  the  rest  into  which 
Judah  shall  enter  after  victorious  conflict  :  "until  he  comes  to  the  place  of  rest, 
and  the  people  obey  him"  (6).  The  passage  is  chiefly  important  as  showing  that 
the  government  of  the  kingdom  of  God  is  to  devolve  upon  the  tribe  of  Judah. 
The  saying  of  Balaam,  Num.  xxiv.  17  sqq.  (comp.  §  30,  with  note  4),  which  was 
mterpreted  m  a  Messianic  sense  by  Jewish  antiquity  (Onkelos),  points  to  an  illus- 
trious sway  proceeding  from  Israel,  which  is  to  subdue  the  neighboring  states, 
and  to  outlast  the  fall  of  the  nations  far  and  near, — a  sway  which  certainly  can- 
not be  conceived  of  apart  from  a  personal  ruler.  Finally,  with  respect  to  the 
promise,  Deut.  xviii.  15-19  (already  fully  discussed,  §  161,  comp.  §  97),  which  is 
still  interpreted  by  many  in  a  directly  Messianic  sense,  5<'3J  cannot,  according  to 
the  context,  be  confined  to  a  single  individual,  the  passage  referring  rather  to  the 
institution  of  the  prophetic  order.  [See  the  grounds  of  this  decision  w^ell  put  in 
the  Speaker's  Commentary  on  the  passage  (note),  which  makes  it  refer,  taking  the 
word  "  prophet"  in  a  collective  sense,  to  a  prophetical  order  culminating  in  the 
Messiah  as  its  chief.  — D.  ]  It  is  not,  however,  without  importance  for  the  develop- 
ment of  the  Messianic  idea,  for  it  teaches  that  for  the  realization  of  the  aim  of 
the  theocracy  there  is  needed  not  merely  a  ruler  to  conquer  the  hostile  world,  but 
also  a  mediator  through  whom  Jehovah  may  speak,  and  who  may  declare  His 
counsel  in  words.  According  to  this  principle,  the  kingdom  of  God  cannot 
attain  its  consummation  unless  this  ruler  is  also  a  prophet. 

(1)  See  my  article  "  Messias  "  in  Herzog's  Real-EncrjlcUp.  ix.  p.  408  sqq.  [also 
Riehm,  Die  messianinrhe  Weismf/^mg,  1875  ;  Orelli,  Die  A.  T.  Weiiisngunff  i)on  der 
Vollemlung  des  Gottesrelch,  1882  ;  Hitzig,  Blblische  Theologle  u.  messianhdie  Weissa- 


§  230.]  FOUNDATION   OF   THE   MESSIANIC    IDEA,  ETC.  523 

gungen  des  A.  T.  1880  ;  Delitzach,  Messianic  Prophectj,  transl.  by  Prof.  Curtiss, 
1880,  and  among  English  autliors,  the  well-known  work  of  J.  Pye  Smith,  Scrijiture 
Testimony  of  the  Messiah  ;  R.  Payne  Smith,  Prophecy  a  Preparation  for  Christianity 
(Bampton  Lecture),  1869;  Gloag,  Messianic  Prophecy,  1879,  etc.— D.] 

(2)  That  prophecy,  moreover,  views  the  relation  of  this  second  David  to- Jeho- 
vah as  an  internal  one,  will  be  shown  below  (§  231). 

(3)  On  the  use  of  the  word  in  the  Targums  of  Onkelos  and  Jonathan,  and  in  the 
New  Testament,  see  the  article  cited,  p.  409,  2d  ed.  p.  G41. 

(4)  On  Gen.  iv.  1,  see  §  G9.  2,  with  note  5  ;  on  v.  29,  §  20,  with  note  G. 

(5)  Hence  the  passages  quoted  are,  in  their  more  extended  signification.  Mes- 
sianic. 

(6)  [Orelli  accepts  the  view  adopted  by  many,  that  the  word  should  be  read 
V)^  =  Si  '^V^^_^  which  gives  the  rendering  "  until  he  come  to  whom  it  (the  sceptre) 
belongs  ;"  but  this  is  strained.— D.j  It  is  quite  incorrect  to  refer  D'Q;;  to  the 
tribes  of  Israel. 

§  230  (1). 

The  Promise,  2  Sam.  vii.,  as  the  Foundation  of  the  Messianic  Idea  in  its  stricter  sense. 

The  Messianic  Psalms. 

The  choice  of  the  house  of  David,  already  spoken  of  in  another  connection  (comp. 
2  Sam.  vii.  1  Chron.  xvii.),  forms  the  foundation  of  the  Messianic  idea  in  its  stricter 
sense.  David  desires  to  build  a  house  for  the  Lord,  whoforbids  the  undertaking, 
but  promises,  on  the  other  hand,  that  He  will  build  David  a  house,  by  establish- 
ing his  seed  in  the  kingdom  for  ever.  To  this  seed  of  David  God  will  be  a  father, 
and  this  seed  shall  be  the  Son  of  God.  God  will  punish  the  sins  of  David's  seed 
in  measure,  but  not  with  extirpation  ;  on  the  contrary,  He  will  never  wholly  take 
His  favor  from  him.  The  Seed  of  David  to  whom  this  promise  applies  is  not  the 
whole  of  David's  descendants  :  He  is  indeed  to  be  of  David^s  sons,  as  1  Chron. 
xvii.  11  adds  by  way  of  explanation,  but  He  is  not  limited  to  a  single  individual. 
According  to  the  exposition  which  the  Old  Testament  itself  gives  of  this  promise, 
the  seed  means  the  descendants  of  David  so  far  as  by  Divine  favor  they  are  elected 
to  the  succession  to  the  throne  ;  and  the  passage  does  not  speak  of  tiie  eternal 
sway  of  one  king,  but  of  the  continual  kingship  of  the  house  of  David,  David 
himself  designating  the  word  as  spoken  concerning  his  house  for  ever,  2  Sam.  vii. 
25.  The  fulfilment  of  the  promise  began,  according  to  1  Chron.  xxii.  9  sq.,  1 
Kings  v.  19,  with  Solomon,  but  is  referred  by  the  psalms  which  comment  upon  it, 
Ps.  Ixxxix.  30  sqq.,  and  also  cxxxii.  11  sq.,  to  all  the  descendants  of  David  who 
succeed  to  the  throne.  2  Sam.  vii.,  however,  forms  in  a  twofold  respect  the  start- 
ing-point for  the  more  definite  form  of  the  Messianic  idea,— ;^;-s^,  by  the  fact  that 
that  consummation  of  the  kingdom  of  God  for  which  Israel  was  chosen,  is  from 
this  time  forward  connected  with  a  King  who,  as  the  Son  of  God,  i.e.  the  repre- 
sentative of  Jehovah,  and,  fitted  by  Him  to  be  the  depositary  of  the  Divine  sov- 
ereignty on  earth,  stands  in  a  relation  of  most  intimate  connection  with  God  ;  and, 
secondly,  in  that  it  is  established  for  all  time  that  this  King  is  to  be  a  Son  of  Lavid. 
(That  "for  ever"  must  be  taken  in  its  strict  sense,  is  shown  by  Ps.  Ixxxix.  37  sq.) 
The  seed  of  David  may  be  humbled,  but  not  for  ever,  1  Kings  xi.  39  (2).  The 
crown  of  David  may  be  taken  away,  but  One  will  come  whose  right  it  is,  Ezek. 
xxi.  27  sq.     The  topmost  branch  of  the  cedar,  which  in  Ezekiel's  vision,  ch.  xvii., 


534  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    PKOPHETISM.  [§  230. 

represents  the  house  of  David,  may  be  broken  off  (3),  but  the  cedar  itself  remains. 
How  glorious  the  view  of  the  Davidic  kingdom  is  rendered  by  the  promise,  2  Sam. 
vii.,  is  first  shown  by  the  last  song  of  David,  2  Sam.  xxiii.  Its  delineation  of  a 
righteous  ruler,  under  whom  a  hapi^y  future  is  to  flourish,  and  its  statement  that 
such  a  government  signifies  the  eternal  covenant  made  by  God  with  the  house  of 
David,  plainly  shows  that  the  perception  of  the  idea  of  the  kingship  is  here  already 
advancing  toward  its  individualization  in  an  ideal,  and  thus  arises  image  jyro- 
'phecy,  as  Sack  aptly  calls  it.  Qualities  which  apply  not  to  himself  personally,  but 
to  the  TcingsMj)  which  he  represents,  may  indeed  be  attributed  to  every  king  who 
sits  on  David's  throne  ;  and  this  is  the  principle  by  which  such  passages  as  Ps.  xxi. 
5,  7,  Ixi.  7,  are  to  be  explained.  But  sacred  poetry,  under  the  impulse  of  the  Spirit, 
now  creates  a  kingly  image,  in  which  all  that  the  present  manifests  is  far  surpassed, 
and  the  kingship  of  David  and  Solomon  beheld  in  typical  perfection.  This  leads 
us  to  the  Messianic  fsalms,  ii.,  xlv.,  Ixxii.,  ex.,  with  respect  to  which  three  differ- 
ent views  have  at  all  times  existed.  According  to  the  first  (which  is  in  part 
found  in  Calvin),  these  psalms  are  to  be  referred  to  some  actual  Israelite  king  ;  but 
since  they  idealize  his  government,  and  thus  transfer  to  him  predicates,  such  as  the 
right  to  universal  sovereignty,  Ps.  ii.  2,  and  the  union  of  an  everlasting  priesthood 
with  his  kingship,  Ps.  ex.,  which  cannot  find  in  him  their  full  historical  accom- 
plishment, they  typically  point  to  the  future  realizer  of  the  theocratic  kingship. 
According  to  tJie  second  view  (Hengstenberg,  Umbreit),  the  poet,  filled  with  the 
idea  of  the  theocratic  kingshi]),  really  rises  in  these  psalms  to  the  view  of  an  in- 
dividual in  whom  this  idea  is  perfectly  realized,  and  hence,  according  to  the  mind 
of  the  Spirit,  is  speaking  of  the  coming  Messiah.  According  to  the  third  view  (4), 
we  must  in  these  psalms  distinguish  between  their  original  signification,  by  which 
they  refer  to  an  historical  king,  and  the  iise  which,  as  prophetic  and  Messianic 
songs  of  praise,  they  siibsequently  acquired  in  Divine  worship.  This  third  view  is 
especially  applicable  to  Ps.  xlv.,  which  was  originally  composed  on  the  occasion 
of  the  marriage  of  an  Israelite  king,  perhaps  Solomon,  with  the  daughter  of  the 
Egyptian  king,  but  which  certainly  acquired,  by  allegorical  interpretation,  a  Mes- 
sianic signification  in  its  liturgical  use  by  the  church  and  in  the  older  Jewish  tlieol- 
ogy  (5),  so  far  as  we  can  trace  it  back.  The  second  view — the  directly  Messianic 
interpretation — is,  on  the  other  hand,  fully  borne  out,  even  apart  from  any  subse- 
quent use  of  these  songs,  in  the  three  remaining  psalms, — in  Ps.  ii.,  which  de- 
scribes the  victorious  Prince  as  receiving,  in  virtue  of  His  Divine  Sonship,  the 
whole  earth  as  His  inheritance  (6)  ;  in  Ps.  Ixxii.,  which  prays  for  the  coming  of 
the  great  Prince  of  Peace,  who  shall  reign  with  righteousness  for  ever,  shall  es- 
pecially defend  the  poor  and  afflicted,  and  to  whom,  therefore,  all  the  nations  and 
kings  of  the  earth  shall  do  homage,  and  in  whom,  vcr.  17,  the  words  spoken  of 
Abraham's  seed.  Gen.  xxii.  18,  etc.,  shall  find  their  fulfilment ;  and  in  Ps.  ex., 
which  celebrates  the  King  who  subdues  the  hostile  world  as  being  at  the  same 
time  the  possessor  of  an  everlasting  priesthood  (7).  The  so-called  historical  in- 
terpretation would  here  divest  some  passages  of  their  meaning,  and  have  to  be 
supported  by  hyperbole,  etc. 

(1)  [On  the  connection  between  tlie  idea  of  the  Messianic  Kingdom  and  that  of 
the  theocratic  kingdom,  comp.  Riehm,  Messianic  Prophecy,  p.  120  (Eng.  tr.).  The 
prophecy  of  the  Messianic  king  appears  in  that  work  as  the  unfolding  of  the  idea 


§  230.]  FOUNDATION   OF  THE   MESSIANIC   IDEA,  ETC.  625 

of  the  theocratic  king,  the  perfect  realization  of  which  the  future  must  bring.  The 
institution  of  the  theocratic  kingdom  is  thus  presented  as  a  real  prophecy,  and  the 
Messianic  predictions  of  the  prophet  as  the  interpretation  of  this  real  prophecy. 
But  in  the  endeavor  to  seize  Messianic  prophecy  in  its  historical  relations,  Kiehm 
does  not  appear  to  do  entire  justice  to  what  he  himself  claims  for  the  prophets, 
viz.  the  '■^  sijecial  agency  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  revelation."  His  statements  often 
make  the  impression  that  no  use  is  made  in  prophecy  of  this  ajiecial  agency.] 

(3)  The  continued  right  of  the  race  of  David  to  the  throne  is  never  called  in 
question  by  prophecy,  though  it  often  passes  sentence  of  rejection  upon  individual 
kings  of  Judah. 

(3)  Ezek.  xvii.  :  An  eagle  comes  and  breaks  off  the  topmost  branch  of  the 
cedar  and  brings  it  into  a  land  of  traffic,  a  city  of  merchants  ;  i.e.,  according  to  the 
projjhet's  own  explanation,  Nebuchadnezzar  comes  and  carries  away  King 
Jehoiachin  with  the  rest  of  the  royal  family  to  Babylon.  The  eagle,  on  the  other 
hand,  plants  a  twig  of  vine  in  the  land,  signifying  the  appointment  of  Zedekiah  by 
Nebuchadnezzar.     But  this  plant  is  also  rooted  up. 

(4)  So  H.  Schultz  on  the  double  meaning  of  Scripture,  m  Studien  und  Kritiken, 
1866,  and  Alttest.  Theol.  p.  828. 

(5)  In  Ps.  xlv.  the  Messianic  view  is  generally  combined  with  the  allegorical 
interpretation.  [Vaihinger  is  an  exception.]  It  is  only  by  doing  some  violence  to 
the  language  that  the  allegorical  meaning  can  be  regarded  as  originally  intended 
by  the  author,  especially  if  the  psalm  is  held  to  be  an  allegorical  representation  of 
the  union  of  the  Messiah  with  Israel  (the  iT^  consort),  whom  the  heathen  nations 
(the  virgins,  the  companions  of  the  queen)  follow.  How  entirely,  to  bring  for- 
ward only  one  point,  is  the  thought  found  in  ver.  11,  that  Israel,  to  unite  with  the 
Messiah,  must  forget  its  people  and  father's  house,  opposed  to  all  the  teachings  of 
the  Old  Testament !  When  the  Targum  explains  the  passage  by  Josh.  xxiv.  14, — 
when  Hengstenberg  refers  to  Gen.  xii.  1,  and  v.  Gerlach  dilutes  the  thought  to, 
Israel  must  make  no  kind  of  claim  on  the  groimd  of  its  previous  relations, — these 
are  the  mere  expedients  of  perplexity,  and  do  justice  neither  to  the  words  nor 
the  context.  Tlie  bride  is  evidently  the  daughter  of  a  heathen  king  ;  and  hence, 
if  the  psalm  is  allegorically  interpreted,  the  explanation  of  H.  A.  Hahn  {Das 
Hohelkd  von  Salomo  ubersetzt  und  erklart,  p.  5),  which  makes  it  merely  describe  the 
introductmi  of  the  heathen  icoi-ld  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  is  a  more  obvious  one. 

(6)  When  the  attempt  is  made  to  set  aside  this  view  by  the  remark  that  it  is 
inconceivable  that  the  author  should  intend  to  sing  the  praise  of  a  king  who  is 
only  exiiected,  there  is  a  strange  disregard  of  the  fact  that  in  Ps.  Ixxxvii.,  e.g., 
the  future  glories  of  the  city  of  God,  and  in  Ps.  xcvi.-xcviii.,  of  the  future  com- 
ing of  Jehovah  to  establish  His  kingdom,  are  thus  extolled  in  song.  Why  should 
not  the  minstrel  be  equally  able  to  behold  and  treat  as  present  the  future  rule  of 
the  Messiah  ?  Would  it  not  have  been  strange  indeed  if  the  Messianic  hopes  of 
Israel  had  found  no  expression  in  the  sacred  poetry  of  the  Old  Testament  ? 

(7)  In  Ps.  ex.,  the  feature  that  an  everlasting  priesthood  is  awarded  to  this 
King,  ver.  4,  is  of  special  significance.  The  theocratic  kingship  had  indeed 
already  attained  in  David  a  certain  priestly  character  (see  §  165,  with  note  8)  ; 
but  such  a  union  of  the  priesthood  with  the  kingship  as  existed  in  the  person  of 
Mclchizedek  is,  from  the  standpoint  of  the  theocratic  institutions,  impossible. 
The  expression  "  after  the  manner  of  Melchizedek"  leads  beyond  these  ;  and  it  is 
because  this  union  of  priesthood  and  kmgship  was  a  thing  so  utterly  unheard  of, 
so  entirely  new,  that  a  Divine  oath  was  needed  to  introduce  its  announcement. 
The  union  here  predicted  of  the  priestly  and  kingly  offices  in  the  Messiah  will  be 
more  particularly  considered,  §  234. 


526  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    PROPHETISM.  [§  231. 


§231. 

The  Development  of  the  Idea  of  the  Messiah  in  the  Prophets :  the  older  Prophetic 
Writings  ;  the  Prophetic  Doctrine  concerning  the  Nature  of  the  Messiah. 

If  we  now  turn  to  the  prophetical  booJcs,  we  shall  find  in  the  older  writings  none 
of  the  more  special  references  to  the  person  of  the  Messiah.  In  the  description 
of  the  times  of  redemption  in  Amos  ix.  11  (§  227),  the  restoration  of  the  fallen 
kingship  of  David  is  only  sjioken  of  in  a  general  manner.  In  Hos.  iii.  5,  conip. 
with  i.  11  there  is  a  more  distinct  mention  of  the  reunion  of  all  Israel,  at  their 
restoration,  under  one  head  of  the  family  of  David.  But  fulLand  d.etailed_pre- 
dictions  of  the  Messiah  are  not  met  with  till  after  the  middle  of  the  eighth 
century,  in  Isaiah  and  MicaTi.  whose  aim  it  was  to  explain,  in  the  light  of  the 
Divine  counsels,  the  approaching  catastrophes  in  which  Israel  would  be  involved 
by  its  complication  with  the  secular  powers,  and  to  show  that  the  final  aim  of  the 
ways  of  God  was  being  prepared  for  by  the  impending  judgments.  Such  Mes- 
sianic prophecy  is,  however,  by  no  means  introduced  by  them  as  something 
absolutely  new  and  till  now  alien  to  the  prophetic  consciousness  (1).  The  low 
estate  to  which  the  Davidic  kingdom  had  fallen  was  indeed  the  external  occasion 
of  directing  the  prophetic  glance  the  more  vividly  toward  its  perfection,  because 
it  is  at  those  times  when  the  Divine  promise  seems,  humanly  sjieaking,  to  fail, 
that  it  is  the  oflBce  of  prophecy  to  testify  to  its  certain  performance  ;  but  it  is 
by  no  means  true  that  the  contemplation  of  the  contrast  produced  the  image  of  the 
Messiah.  To  sum  up,  then,  the  essential  features  of  Messianic  prophecy,  let  us 
inquire,  .first.  What  does  prophecy  teach  concerning  the  natvrp,  of  the  Messiah  ? 
does  it  attribute  to  Him  a  superhuman  dignity  ?  The  meaning  of  almost  all  the 
passages  on  this  subject  has  been  made  a  matter  of  controversy.  We  begin  with 
Mic.  V.  2  sqq.  According  to  ver.  2,  the  Me^^suih  is  indeed  to  proceed  from  Beth- 
lehem,  the  small  and  insignificant  town  of  David;  but  "His  goings  forth" 
wX  wH+o OT**^*"^)  are  "from  of  old,  from  the  days  of  eternity."  If  the  latter  words, 
expressing  as  they  do  a  contrast  with  the  origin  from  Bethlehem,  refer,  as  many 
modern  writers  assert,  merely  to  the  descent  of  the  Messiah  from  the  ancient 
house  of  David,  the  contrast  they  present  is  a  very  faint  one,  in  which,  moreover, 
justice  is  not  done  to  the  evident  reference  of  v^nJ^^flD  to  NV'  'S  in  the  preceding 
clause  (see  especially  Umbreit  on  the  passage).  The  words  speak  either  of  an 
eternal  and  Divine  origin  of  the  Messiah  (2),  or  state — in  which  case  certainly 
there  is  more  reason  for  the  use  of  the  plural  nx^lD— that  the  entire  sacred  history 
from  its  very  beginnings  (origines)  contains  the  going  forths  of  the  Messiah,  the 
preparatory  elements  of  His  coming  (3).  In  ver.  3,  Micah  says  mysteriously  of 
the  birth  of  the  Messiah,  "  Therefore  will  He  give  them  up"  (Israel  to  judgment) 
"until  the  time  that  she  which  travaileth  hath  brought  forth."  To  understand 
(with  Calvin  and  many  modern  writers,  even  Kleinert)  H")'?!',  by  referring  back  to 
iv.  9  sq.,  of  the  daughter  of  Zion,  is  forbidden  by  the  absence  of  the  article.  The 
passage  speaks  of  the  mother  of  the  Messiah  ;  and  the  prophet,  as  Hitzig  correctly 
remarks,  "  expresses  himself  with  becoming  reserve  concerning  obscure  and 
mysterious  subjects,"     It  is  noticeable  indeed  that  the  prophets,  however  near 


§  231.]  DEVELOPMENT   OF   THE   IDEA   OF  THE    MESSIAH.  537 

at  hand  their  intuition  may  make  tlic  advent  of  tlie  Messiah,  never  speak  of 
Him  as  the  son  of  any  actually  existing,'  king  (4).  Isa.  iv.  2  (if  the  Messiah  is 
there  spoken  of,  as  tlic  Targuniists  supposed)  corresponds  with  Mic.  v.  2,  the 
coming  One  being  then  designated  tlie  n;n;  HD^  by  His  Divine,  and  the  j'^NH  ns 
by  His  earthly  and  national  descent.  This  interpretation  is,  however,  by  no 
means  certain.  The  passage  Mic.  v.  3,  on  the  other  hand,  is  parallel  with  the 
prophecy  Isa.  vii.  14  of  the  birth  of  Immanuel  from  the  nDb;?;  a  passage  whose 
reference  to  the  Messiah  is  demanded  by  its  connection  with  ix.  5  (5),  though 
the  interpretation  at  present  prevaihng  regards  it  as  only  typically  Messianic  (see 
even  Bengel's  Gnomon).  HpSj',  indeed,  is  not  —  nSina,  as  if  tlie  birth  of  Messiah 
from  the  virgo  ilUhata  were  here  taught.  Besides,  the  essential  feature  of  the 
given  sign  is  not  the  fact  that  a  noSj?  conceives,  but  that  the  Messiah  is  Immanuel, 
that  the  unchangeable  communion  of  God  with  His  people  is  actually  made  ap- 
parent in  the  midst  of  impending  judgments.  The  mysterious  nature,  however, 
of  the  expression  can  neither  here  nor  in  Micali  be  mistaken  (C).  The  exalted 
nature  of  the  Messiah  is  more  definitely  brought  forward  m  ix.  6  sq.  :  "  Unto  us 
a  child  IS  born,  unto  us  a  son  is  given  ;  and  the  government  is  upon  His 
shoulders  ;  and  His  name  is  called  the  Wonderful-Counsellor  (comp.  xxviii.  29  and 
Judg.  xiii.  18,  marg.  A,  V.),  the  mighty  God"  (for  so  must  it  be  understood, 
comp.  X.  21),  "the  everlasting  Father  [so  Orelli  and  Bohl],  the  Prince  of  Peace  ; 
for  the  increase  of  the  government  and  for  peace  without  end,  on  David's  throne 
and  m  his  kingdom,  to  establish  and  support  It  with  judgment  and  justice,  from 
henceforth  and  for  ever."  The  Messiah  is  eviderttly  regarded  an  a  Divine  Beiny, 
though  here  also  the  expressions  are  mysteriously  indefinite.  In  the  ]\Iessiunic 
passage  xi,  1  sqq.,  the  Divine  element  in  the  Messiah  appears  only  as  the  fulness  Voo-  "^  . 
of  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  resting  upon  Him,  and  endowing  Him  for  His  righteous  J><o-"*^ 
and  happy  rule.  How  close,  side  by  side,  to  use  Stier's  expression,  the  two  lines 
of  promise — the  appearance  of  God  and  the  apjjcarance  of  the  IMessiah — run,  and 
seem  almost  to  touch  without  uniting,  is  shown  also  by  the  Messianic  predictions 
of  the  subsequent  i)ro])hets.  And  first,  we  must  notice  Jer.  xxiii.  in  connection 
with  xxxiii.  14-26  and  Ezek.  xxxiv.  In  the  first  passage,  the  prophet,  who  in 
eh.  xxii.  had  declared  the  race  of  the  two  kings  Jehoiachin  and  Jehoiakim  to  be 
excluded  from  the  throne  of  David,  proclaims  that  the  Lord  will,  at  the  time 
when  He  gathers  His  flock  from  all  countries  whither  He  has  driven  them,  raise 
up  unto  David  a  righteous  Brancli  (HD^).  The  same  expression  reappears  xxxiii. 
15  ;  nay,  "Branch"  becomes  even  a  froper  name  of  tlie  Messiah,  Zech.  iii.  8,  vi. 
12.  (From  these  passages,  it  is  very  evident  that  when  in  .ler.  xxx.  9,  Ezek. 
xxxiv.  23  sq.,  xxxviii.  24,  it  is  said  with  reference  to  the  future  ruler,  that  David 
is  to  be  raised  up,  we  are  not,  like  Ammon  (7)  and  others,  to  imagine  a  resur- 
rection of  the  former  king  David.)  Wlien,  now,  it  is  said,  Jer.  xxiii.  6,  of  tlie 
Messiah,  that  the  name  wherewith  He  shall  be  called  is  "  the  Lord  our  righteous- 
ness" O^plV  i^li^'),  the  older  theology  was  certainly  mistaken  in  regarding  this  as 
a  proof  text  of  the  first  order  for  the  divinity  of  the  Messiah  ;  for  it  is  not  said 
that  the  Messiah  is  Jehovah  our  righteousness,  but  that  He  is  called  Jehovah  our 
righteousness,  because  in  Him  and  through  Him  Jehovah  is  perceived  to  consti- 
tute His  people's  righteousness.  In  the  parallel  passage,  xxxiii.  16,  moreover,  it 
is  said  that  in  those  days  Jerusalem  shall  be  called  Jehovah  our  righteousness,  an^ 


628  THE   THEOLOGY   OF    PROPHETISM.  [§  231. 

in  Ex.  xvii.  15  an  altar  is  called  "Jehovah  my  banner."  "When,  however,  the 
Messiah  is  designated,  Jer.  xxx.  21,  as  the  Governor  that  shall  proceed  from  the 
midst  of  the  people,  whom  (iod  will  c^use  to  draw  near  to  Him  that  He  may 
approach  unto  Him, — "  for  who  is  this  that  engages  His  heart  to  approach  unto 
me  ?" — a  specific  relation  of  the  Messiali  to  Jehovah  such  as  no  human  being  could 
claim  for  himself  is  here  alluded  to  py  jefcmiaK^  With  this  corresponds  the 
'■O'PJ^;  "^^.rl,  "the  man  that  is  my  fellow,"  of  Zech.  xiii.  7,  according  to  the  Mes- 
sianic and  only  tenable  interjiretation  of  this  passage.  Sj^ecial  stress  has  been  laid 
upon  xii.  8.  It  is  there  declared  how  the  Lord  will,  in  the  last  conflict  that  shall 
rage  against  the  Holy  City,  defend  and  strengthen  the  citizens,  so  that  in  that 
day  "  he  that  stumbles  among  them  shall  be  as  David,  and  the  house  of  David  as 
God,  as  the  angel  of  the  Lord  before  them."  Here,  it  has  been  said,  the  house 
of  David  is  comprised  in  its  head,  the  Messiah,  who  is  here  designated  as  the 
angel  in  whom  Jehovah,  in  the  days  of  old,  marched  at  the  head  of  His  people. 
But  does  such  a  view  of  "the  house  of  Davjd  "  agree  with  the  connection  with 
ver.  7,  and  especially  with  ver.  10  sqq.?  If  lamentation  for  the  pierced  Messiah 
(of  which  we  shall  speak  §  234)  is  really  the  subject  of  ver.  10,  must  not  the  house 
of  David  in  ver.  8  be  taken  in  the  same  sense  as  the  TIH-n-a  r\T\B^'7p  of  ver.  12, 
i.e.  exclusive  of  the  Messiah  ?  (8).  But  then  we  ask,  If  the  house  of  David  is  in 
those  days  endowed  with  such  victorious  power  as  to  be  compared  even  to  the 
angel  of  the  Lord,  what  will  the  second  David  Himself  be  ?  The  second  passage 
on  this  topic.  Mai,  in.  1.  is  also  a  subject  of  controversy  :  "  Behold,  I  will  send 
my  messenger,  and  he  shall  prepare  the  way  before  me,  and  the  Lord  whom  ye 
seek  shall  suddenly  come  to  His  temple,  and  the  angel  (messenger)  of  the  cove- 
nant whom  ye  desire,  behold,  He  shall  come  ;"  ver.  2  :  "  But  who  may  abide  the 
day  of  His  coming,  and  who  shall  stand  when  He  appeareth  ?"  It  is  evident 
from  iv.  5  sq.  (9)  who  iha  jjreceding  messenger  is  ;  a  prophet  zealous  for  the  law 
is,  in  the  power  of  Elijah,  to  call  the  people  to  repentance,  that  the  day  of  the 
Lord's  appearing  may  not  be  for  their  destruction.  But  the  Lord  who  sends  this 
harbin<rer  before  Him,  and  then  Himself  comes  to  His  temple,  is  Jehovah  (10), 
the  God  of  judgment, — longed  for,  according  to  ii.  17,  by  the  people,  as  appears 
also  by  comparing  iii.  5.  But  who  then  is  the  JT'^^O  "^i^'T^,  "  the  angel  of  the  cov- 
enant," whose  coming  coincides  with  the  coming  of  Jehovah?  Certainly  not 
the  forerunner  spoken  of  at  the  beginning  of  tlie  verse.  We  naturally  think  of 
that  angel  of  the  Divine  presence  by  whom  Jehovah  once  led  His  people  in  the 
wilderness,  and  who  was  now  again  to  be  the  medium  of  His  covenant  relation 
to  Israel  (11)  ;  but  in  this  case  this  passage  says  nothing  of  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah,  although  it  is  in  fact  quite  correct  to  say  with  Hengstenberg,  "  that  this 
announcement  received  its  final -fulfilment  in  the  appearance  of  Christ,  in  whom 
the  angel  of  the  Lord,  the  Aoyoi,  became  flesh."  We  may,  however,  with  Ilof- 
mann  {Schriftbeweis,  i.  p.  183),  refer  the  r\'")5n  '^^7'?  ^s  well  as  the  first  ^^7'='  to  a 
human  instrument  for  the  establishment  of  the  covenant,  the  counterpart  of 
Moses,  the  Mediator  of  the  new  and  more  perfect  relation  and  communion  between 
God  and  His  people,  and  therefore  to  the  Messiah  Himself.  Then  the  pa^'pgf 
certainly  makes. the  coining  of  Jehovah  and  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  the  same. 
though  without  stating  anything  concerning  the  internal  relation  of  the  two  to 
^ach  other.     Finally,  we  turn  to  the  teaching  of  the  Book  of  Daniel.     In  the  cluet 


§  231.]  DEVELOPMENT   OF   THE    IDEA    OF   THE   MESSIAH.  520 

passage,  vii.  in  sq.  (12),  llie  interpretation  of  whicli  is  also  controverted,  Daniel  sees 
in  a  vision  one  like  a  son  of  man,  comini,' with  the  clouds  of  heaven,  brought  before 
the  Ancient  of  Days,  and  endowed  l)y  Ilim  with  eternal  dominion  over  all  nations. 
The  view  (Hofmann  and  Kijhler)  (13),  that  the  human  form  here  spoken  of  sig- 
nifies not  an  individual,  the  Messiah,  but  the  Messianic  kingdom,  the  possessors 
of  which  are  the  saints  of  the  Most  High,  vers.  18,  22,  27  (§  227,  note  1),— that 
this  kingdom  is,  in  contrast  to  those  secular  kingdoms  denoted  by  symbolical 
forms  of  animals  coming  from  beneath,  a  heavenly  and  a  genuinely  human  one, — 
cannot  be  decidedly  refuted.  As  far,  however,  as  traditional  exegesis  can  be  fol- 
lowed back  (14),  the  son  of  man  has  bcen_j-cgardcd  as  the  Messiah,  who  hence 
appears,  as  Paul  says,  as  the  Lord  from  heaven  (15).  Besides,  the  secular  powers 
also  appear  incorporated  in  individual  rulers  (as  the  Chaldean  in  Nebuchadnezzar, 
ii.  38).  It  has  been  already  remarked  (§  199)  (16),  that  if  the  Messianic  interpre- 
tation of  the  passage  is  adopted,  the  combination  of  the  son  of  man  with  the 
mysterious  being  in  viii.  15-17,  x.  5  sqq.,  xii.  6  sqq.,  is  an  obvious  step  (17). 

(1)  The  view  which  makes  the  Messianic  hope  in  general  originate  in  the  8th 
century  b.c.  cannot  be  sustained. 

(2)  So  Caspari  [and  Bohl].  Micah,  however,  makes  no  further  disclosure  in  this 
respect. 

(3)  So  Hofmann  (Schriftbeweis,  ii.  p.  9  sq.)  :  "  The  ruler  has  been  going  forth 
from  inconceivable  distant  ages,  and  His  advent  is  approaching  ;  and  this  advent 
:s  at  length  to  proceed  from  Bethlehem.  For  since  He  is  the  person  to  whom  the 
history  of  mankind,  of  Israel,  and  of  the  house  of  David  tends,  all  the  progress  of 
any  of  these  are  but  germs  of  His  advent,  goings  forth  of  the  second  son  of  Jesse, 
of  the  second  David."     [Orelli  adopts  this  interpretation,  p.  343  sqq.] 

(4)  According  to  Mic.  v.  4,  the  Messiah  shall  then  "stand  and  feed  in  the 
strength  of  the  Lord,  and  in  the  majesty  of  the  name  of  the  Lord  His  God  ;"  hence 
He  is  to  be  endowed  with  Divine  power,  that  He  may  conduct  His  government 
with  Divine  authority,  and  be  the  revealer  of  Jehovah.  The  expression  recalls 
the  former  angel  of  the  covenant,  Ex.  xxiii.  21. 

(5)  Ewald  especially  [also  Orelli  and  Bohl]  has  again  defended  the  Messianic  in- 
terpretation of  Isa.  vii.  14. 

(6)  I  cannot  here  enter  into  all  the  other  difficulties. 

(7)  See  Ammon,  Die  Fortbildinig  des  Christenthums  zur  Weltreligion,  i.  p.  178  ; 
also  Hitzig.  Compare  the  expectation  of  King  Sebastian  by  the  Portuguese,  and 
of  Barbarossa  by  the  Germans. 

(8)  So  Schmieder,  whose  further  exposition  of  the  passage  may  be  omitted. 

(9)  Mai.  iv.  5  :  "  Behold,  I  will  send  unto  you  Elijah  the  prophet,  before  the 
coming  of  the  great  and  dreadful  day  of  the  Lord." 

(10)  Not  the  Messiah  ;  as  Jahn,  Appendix  herm.  p.  58,  holds. 

(11)  So  e.g.  Havernick,  Theol.  des  A.T.  2d  ed.  p.  212  [and  Orelli,  p.  509.] 

(12)  Dan.  vii.  13  sq.  forms  the  conclusion  of  the  prophetic  vision,  in  which  the 
four  universal  empires  are  represented  under  the  image  of  four  beasts  (§  221). 
After  the  dominion  is  taken  from  these  beasts,  the  kingdom  of  God  is  set  up. 
"  I  saw  in  the  night  vision,  and  behold  one  like  a  son  of  man  came  with  the  clouds 
of  heaven,  and  came  to  the  Ancient  of  Days,  and  they  brought  him  near  before 
Him.  And  there  was  given  him  dominion,  and  glory,  and  a  kingdom,  that  all 
people,  nations,  and  languages  should  serve  him.  His  dominion  is  an  everlasting 
dominion,  which  shall  not  pass  away,  and  his  kingdom  that  which  shall  not  be 
destroyed." 

(13)  [Similarly  Hitzig,  J/t'ss.  Weias.  p.  120,  "  the  personified  people  of  the  saints 
of  the  Most  High."  Against  this  view,  Anger,  p.  81  ;  Orelli,  p.  519  sq.,  and  espe- 
cially Riehm,  p.  123  sqq.] 


530  tHE  THEOLOGY   OF   PROPHETtSM.  [§  232. 

(14)  The  oldest  witnesses  of  this  are  the  vlbg  avdpunov  of  the  New  Testament 
and  the  Book  of  Enocli. 

(15)  At  the  same  time  he  appears  as  man.  As  C.  B.  Michaelis  justly  remarks, 
there  is  no  more  a  Docetic  element  in  ^^^  "1^3  than  in  buoiog  v'kj  avdpuirov,  Rev.  i. 
13  :  2  non  exdudit  rei  veritatem,  sedformam  ejus,  quod  visum  est,  descriUt.  (Heng- 
stenberg  thinks  otherwise,  and  considers  the  expression  to  point  to  the  fact  that 
there  is  in  the  Messiah  another  aspect  in  which  He  is  far  more  than  human.) 

(16)  According  to  the  usual  view,  the  Messiah  does  not  again  appear  among 
the  celestial  beings  of  the  Book  of  Daniel.  [Riehm  is  decidedly  opposed  to  the 
above  combination.] 

(17)  The  identification  of  this  KvpioQ  k^  ohpavov  in  human  form,  who  even  dur- 
ing the  time  of  the  secular  empires  advances  the  counsel  of  God  in  the  heathen 
world,  and  at  last  receives  universal  dominion,  with  the  son  of  David  of  the  other 
prophets,  is  not  indeed  completed  in  the  Book  of  Daniel.  Such  a  circumstance 
is,  however,  characteristic  of  prophecy  ;  see  §  21G.  3.  For  while  we  find  in  the 
Old  Testament  the  postulates  of  all  the  essential  definitions  of  New  Testament 
Christology,  the  revelation  which  organically  combines  and  completes  them  is  not 
given  till  the  facts  of  revelation  are  consummated. 

§  333. 

Continuation:   The  Office  and  Worh  of  the  Messiah. 

"With  respect,  secondly,  to  the  office  and  rooi'lc  of  the  Messiah,  these  are,  as  the 
name  itself  implies,  first  those  of  dicing.  His  coming  presupposes  the  rejection  of 
the  nation,  and  the  deepest  humiliation  of  the  house  of  David  ;  hence  the..^Mes- 
sianic  kingdom  rises /rowi  an  abject  to  a  glorious  state.  This  thought  is  ex- 
pr'essed  in  Mic.  vT  3,  but  "especially  "in  Isa.  xi.  l!  The  Messiah  comes  forth  as  a 
rod  or  sprout  out  of  the  V\}  (the  trunk  of  a  hewn-down  tree,  as  in  Job  xiv.  8)  of 
Jesse.  The  royal  race  is  named  after  Jesse,  because  the  appearance  of  the  Messiah, 
the  second  David,  corresponds  with  the  elevation  of  the  first  David  from  his  low 
estate,  on  which  account  also  the  Messiah,  like  the  first  David,  proceeds  from  the 
insignificant  town  of  Bethleliem.  The  passage  Ezek.  xvii.  22  sqq.,  already  cited 
§  230,  also  treats  of  this  subject.  From  the  lofty  cedar  of  Lebanon,  which  here 
represents  the  royal  house  of  David,  the  Lord  takes  a  tender  twig  and  plants  it  on 
Mount  Zion  ;  this  twig  grows  into  a  goodly  cedar,  under  whose  shadow  all  the  birds 
of  the  air  (the  different  nations  of  the  earth)  assemble,  and  which  is  exalted  above 
all  the  trees  of  the  field  (the  earthly  powers).  This  must  certainly  not  be  referred 
to  Zerubbabel,  but  to  the  Messianic  kingsliin.  which  was  to  be  raised  from  small  and 
insignificant  beginnings  to  glory.  With  this  corresponds  the  description  Zech.  ix. 
9  sq.  It  is  not  with  the  pomp  of  an  earthly  conqueror,  but  with  lowly  array  and 
riding  upon  an  ass,  that  the  Messiah  makes  His  entry  into  Jerusalem.  His  king- 
dom has  no  need  of  warlike  weapons,  which  are,  on  the  contrary,  to  be  swept  away 
(comp.  Isa.  ix.  5).  Beginning  at  Jerusalem,  He  founds  a  peaceful  kingdom,  which 
is  to  reach  from  sea  to  sea,  and  from  the  river  to  the  ends  of  the  earth  (1).  "When, 
then,  the  Messianic  government  is  here,  as  also  in  Mic.  v.  6  sqq.,  and  afterward 
in  Zech.  ix.  11  sqq.,  again  represented  as  a  warlike  one,  the  remarks  already  made 
(§  216.  3)  on  such  unconnected  juxtaposition  of  dissimilar  features  must  be  applied. 

The  question,  however,  which  even  in  the  ancient  church  was  one  of  the  mosf 
important  subjects  of  dispute,  especially  in  meeting  the  objections  of  the  Jews^ 


§  233.]  THE    OFFICE   AND    WORK    OF  THE   MESSIAH.  531 

viz.  Does  the  Old  Testament  also  speak  of  a  sw^mnj' Christ  ?  (Xp/^roc  TtnOr/ro^),  i.e. 
one  who  atones  by  death  and  suffering  for  the  sins  of  the  people,  now  claims  a 
more  particular  discussion.  The  Messianic  passages  hitherto  quoted  do  not  in- 
volve this.  The  incipient  abasement  of  tlie  Messiah,  considered  in  and  by  itself, 
stands  in  no  relation  to  the  abolition  of  sin.  According  to  Isa.  xi.  4,  9,  the 
Messiah  effects  the  latter,  first,  by  judging  righteously,  by  smiting  the  land  with 
the  rod  of  His  mouth,  and  slaying  the  wicked  with  the  breath  of  His  lips  ;  and, 
secondly,  by  the  fact  that  under  Him  the  earth  shall  be  full  of  the  hiowledge  of 
the  Lord,  so  that  none  shall  hurt  or  destroy  upon  His  holy  mountain.  But,  together 
with  these  statements,  there  is  another  prophetic  view  which  points  to  a  servant 
of  Ood  who  suffers  in  the  place  of  the  people.,  to  an  act  of  atonement  on  which  the 
dawning  of  the  day  of  redemption  depends,  to  the  priesthood  of  the  Messiah.  To 
make  evident,  however,  the  connection  between  this  branch  of  prophecy  and  the 
whole  doctrinal  system  of  the  Old  Testament,  it  will  be  necessary  to  enter  some- 
what more  into  detail. 

(1)  See  further  on  the  progress  of  the  Messianic  kingdom,  §228.  On  the  entire 
passage  Zech.  ix.  9  sqq.  comp.  Orelli,  p.  275  sqq. 

§  233. 

Continiuition. 

The  answer  given  by  the  Old  Testament  to  the  question,  Of  what  imyortance  ure 
the  sufferinQSof  the  righteous_jcith  respect  to  the  hingdora  of  God  ?  is,  in  the  first 
place,  that  inasmuch  ^sthe  sufferings  of  a  righteous  man  give  occasion  to  the 
manifestation  of  God's  faithfulness  and  power  in  his  deliverance,  they  serve  not 
only  as  a  pattern  and  pledge  of  the  grace  of  God  to  strengthen  and  comfort  other 
just  men,  but  also  to  procure  an  acknowledgment  of  His  saving  power  from  those 
who  as  yet  have  not  known  Him.  This  thought  is  most  completely  carried  out  in 
f.lift  2'2d  Psj^lqi  A  guiltless  sufferer,  exposed  to  ruthless  enemies  and  undergoing 
agonizing  torture,  prays  for  deliverance  from  his  misery.  "While  he  is  wrestling 
in  prayer,  faith  triumphs  ;  nay,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  psalm,  prayer  is  exchanged 
for  the  glad  announcement  that  it  has  been  heard.  Then  follows  a  description 
how,  in  consequence  of  this  Divine  act  of  deliverance,  all  who  are  afflicted  and 
exposed  to  death  find  refreshment  at  the  sacrificial  feast  made  by  the  rescued 
sufferer  ;  nay,  the  ends  of  the  earth,  all  the  heathen  nations,  turn  to  the  Lord. 
This  description  at  the  end  of  the  psalm  recalls  especially  the  predicted  feast  of 
the  Messianic  days,  Isa.  xxv.  6  sqq.,  which  God  is  preparing  upon  Mount  Zion  for 
all  nations,  and  at  which  the  mourning  veil  shall  be  taken  from  all  nations,  and 
death  forever  destroyed  (§  226)  (1).  Whether  the  psalm  was  occasioned  by  the  ex- 
perience of  a  David  (although  a  corresponding  event  in  his  life  cannot  be  pointed 
out,  since  even  1  Sam.  xxiii.  25  sqq.,  does  not  entirely  answer),  a  Jeremiah,  or  some 
other  servant  of  God  (2),  the  description_ given  of  the  causal  connection  between 
the  sufferings  of  a  righteous  person  and  the  consummation  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
far  surpasses Tny thing  that  'could  be  prcdicated"of  any  Old  Testament  character. 
Neither  can  IsraelltS-annittori  (Kimchi),  well  as  many  of  the  expressions  apply,  be 
the  subject  of  the  psalm  ;   for  the  speaker  very  decidedly  distinguishes  himself 


532  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    PROPHETISM.  [§  233. 

from  the  people,  ver.  22  sq.  The  fact  is  (comp.  Hengstenberg's  later  explanation 
of  the  psalm),  that  we  have  here  portrayed  an  ideal  individual,  in  whom  the  suf- 
ferings of  the  servant  of  God  and  their  happy  results  are  complete.  It  cannot 
indeed  be  proved  that  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  David,  is  in  the  Psalmist's  intention 
the  subject  of  the  psalm,  though  the  thought  that  the  path  from  suffering  to  glory 
which  David  liadjojread  would  bejiepeated  in  the  case  also  of  his  great  descend- 
ant, could  not  be  very: distant. 

A.  far  more  profound  vifw  ia,  however,  taken  of  the  sufferings  of  a  just  man, 
when  the  light  in  which  they  are  regarded  is  that  of  suistltutioriary  atonement. 
That  the  intercession  of  the  righteous  for  a  sinful  nation  is  effectual,  is  a  thought 
running  through  the  entire  Old  Testament  from  Gen.  xviii.  23  sqq.  and  Ex.  xxxii. 
32  sqq.  (comp.  Ps.  cvi.  23,  and  subsequently  Amos  vii.  1  sqq.)  onward.  This  sub- 
ject has  already  been  repeatedly  brought  forward  (see  §  29,  with  note  3,  §  127), 
It  is  indeed  also  stated  that  guilt  may  reach  a  height  at  which  God  will  no  longer 
accept  the  intercession  of  His  servants,  Jer.  xv.  1  sq.  (3).  There  is  a  limit  to  the 
prophet's  duty  of  standing  in  the  breach,  as  it  is  expressed  Ezek.  xiii,  5  and  else- 
where. Jeremiah  is  commanded  to  intercede  no  more  for  the  people,  now  ripe  for 
judgment.  And  indeed  even  the  righteousness  of  the  servants  of  God  is  insuffi- 
cient in  His  sight  to  constitute  them  valid  intercessors  for  the  sinful  people.  Their 
appointed  mediators  (D'V'??)  are  themselves  sinful,  and  therefore  incapable  of  avert- 
ing the  decree  of  judgment  from  the  nation  ;  see  as  chief  passage,  Isa.  xliii.  27. 
They  must  be  contented  if  they  deliver  themselves  by  their  righteousness,  Ezek, 
xiv.  14  sqq.  But  for  this  very  reason  the  prophecy  of  redemption  is  not  complete 
till  it  beholds  an  individual  who  is  capable  of  effectually  advocating  the  cause  of 
the  people  before  God  ;  and  this  is  the  servant  of  Jehovah,  Isa.  liii.  That  the 
prophetic  intuition  of  the  Hin:  Tj;?.  in  the  Book  of  Isaiah,  xl.-lxvi...  commences 
with  the  7iation^hut  culminates  in  an  individual,  has  been  already  remarked- in 
§  227,  iSo  early  as  ch,  xlii,  and  xlix.  the  view  is  gradually  transferred  from  the 
nation  to  an  individual  distinct  from  the  nation,  who  (xlii.  6)  negotiates  a  cove- 
nant for  the  people,  and  then  becomes  the  light  of  the  Gentiles,— who,  as  medi- 
ator of  the  covenant,  resettles  the  people  like  a  second  Joshua  in  the  possession  of 
the  land,  xlix.  8  (4).  Even  if  in  these  passages  the  servant,  so  far  as  he  is  distin- 
guished from  the  people,  is  made  to  refer  to  that  germ  which  represents  the  genu- 
ine Israel,  the  aggregate  of  the  servants  of  God,  including  the  true  prophets  (5), 
yet  ch,  liii.,  on  the  contrary,  can  only  refer  to  an  individual.  (Hence  Ewald,  e.g., 
regards  this  portion  as  interpolated  from  an  older  book,  in  which  a  single  martyr 
was  spoken  of  (6).)  For  it  is  not  the  heathen  who  speak,  as  the  utterly  erroneous 
view  now  so  widely  disseminated  asserts,  but  the  prophet,  now  in  the  name  of  the 
prophets  in  general,  ver,  1  :  "  Who  hath  believed  our  report  ?"  and  now  in  that 
of  the  people,  ver.  6  :  "  All  we  like  sheep  have  gone  astray  ;  we  have  turned  every 
one  to  his  own  way  ;  and  the  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  ns  all."  The 
sense  of  guilt  is  so  vivid,  even  in  the  case  of  the  prophets  who  know  themselves  to 
be  the  servants  of  God,  that  they  include  themselves  in  the  sinful  mass  of  the 
people  for  whom  an  atonement  is  needed  :  "  We  are  all  as  the  unclean"  (comp. 
lix.  13).  Hence  a  valid  intercession  for  the  people  cannot  proceed  from  them, 
lix.  16  ;  nor  can  even  the  aggregate  of  God's  servants  effect  an  atonement.  On 
the  contrary,  it  is  upon  the  foundation  of  its  intuition  of  those  witnesses  who  have 


§  233.]  THE    OFFICE    AI^D    WORK    OF   THE    MESSIAH.  533 

suffered  in  the  cause  of  tnUli,  tli;it  prophecy  rises  to  the  iiituit2onofrt»^jn_whom 
th<^  image_of_tlhe  faitliful  serviint  is  complete,— of  one  who,  not  ffTHTTTo'wn  sins, 
but  as  thesubstitute  of  tlie  people  and  for  their  sins,  lays  down  his  life  as  an  D^'K 
(liii.  10,  comp.  §  137),  a  payment  in  full  for  debt,  but  is,  notwithstanding  the 
prophetic  message  (^jr\;;rDB/,  ver.  1)  which  points  to  him,  despised  and  regarded  by 
his  people,  for  whom  he  appears,  as  stricken  of  God  for  his  own  transgressions 
(7)  ;  nay,  who  is,  moreover,  treated  even  in  death  like  the  violent  wicked  and  the 
deceitful  rich  C'py^  in  ver.  9,  Ih,  being  elucidated  by  the  contrast  in  2h),  and  like 
those  whom  a  curse  follows  even  to  the  grave.  God  leads  him  from  the  grave  to 
glory,  so  that  he  is  now  the  author  of  righteousness  to  many,  and  divides  the  spoil 
with  the  strong.  The  supposed  traces  of  a  collective  meaning  in  'lO*?,  ver.  8,  and 
rnna,  ver.  9,  disappear  when  they  are  correctly  interpreted  (8).  Thus  it  was  during 
the  period  when  Israel  was  without  a  place  of  sacrifice  in  which  to  seek  for  an 
atonement  by  the  blood  of  beasts,  that  it  was  disclosed  to  the  prophetic  spirit  that 
the  voluntary  self-sacrifice  of  one  perfectly  righteous  would  be  an  atoning_  sacrifice 
for  the  redemptio^lji  the  pe6plG'. '  ~ 

(1)  This  sacrificial  feast,  Ps.  xxii.  27,  at  which  those  exposed  to  death  eat  of 
such  things  that  their  hearts  live  for  ever,  reaches  far  beyond  what  an  Israelite  at 
his  thank-offering  was  accustomed,  according  to  Deut.  xvi.  11,  to  prepare  for  the 
poor  and  needy. 

(2)  [That  Ps.  xxii.  takes  for  its  point  of  departure  the  sufferings  of  a  man  of 
God,  is  held  also  by  the  more  recent  commentators  who  do  not  deny  its  prophetic 
import,  as  Orelli,  p.  196  sqq.,  and  Bohl,  p.  152  sq.j 

(3)  Jer.  XV.  1  :  "  Though  Moses  and  Samuel  stood  before  me,  yet  my  mind 
could  not  be  toward  this  people  :  cast  them  out  of  my  sight,  and  let  them  go 
forth." 

(4)  In  Isa.  xlii.  1,  the  servant  upon  whom  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  rests,  that  he 
may  bring  forth  the  claims  of  tlie  Lord  before  the  Gentiles,  forms,  in  the  first 
place,  a  contrast  to  heathendom  and  its  tcindy  ways,  xli.  29.  As  the  discourse 
proceeds,  however,  he  is,  ver.  7,  placed  beside  Cyrus,  which  speaks  for  the  con- 
centration of  the  l^i'  in  an  individual.  Comp.  Delitzsch  in  Drechsler's  Commen- 
tary on  Isa.  vol.  iii.  p.  336  sq.  :  "  The  idea  of  nin;  n^J?.  is,  to  represent  it  in  brief 
and  to  the  senses,  a  pyramid  ;  its  lowest  base  is  collective  Israel,  its  middle  part 
Israel  not  Kara  aapKa  but  Karh  Trvevfia,  its  ape.x  the  person  of  the  Redeemer.  It  is 
one  and  the  same  idea  which,  when  concentrated,  becomes  personal,  and  when  ex- 
tended is  again  national."  What  has  been  said  above  may  show  how  far  I  now 
think  it  necessary  to  modify  what  I  formerly  said  in  my  article  on  the  Servant  of 
Jehovah,  Isa.  xl.  sqq.     {Ti'ihinger  Zeitschrift,  1840,  No.  2,  p.  134  sqq.). 

(5)  That  the  true  prophets  are  included  among  these  servants  of  God,  is  self- 
evident  ;  nay,  Isa.  xlviii.  16,  1.  4  sqq.,  may  be  so  far  referred  to  the  prophet  him- 
selfjthat  it  might  be  from  his  own  experience  of  sorrow  that  he  here  depicted  the 
servant  of  the  Lord.  But  it  is  utterly  incorrect  to  sujipose  that  the  prophetic 
order  is  directly  intended  by  this  image.  For  how  could  it  be  the  ofiice  of  the 
prophetic  order  to  distribute  to  the  restored  peojile  their  desolated  inheritance, 
etc.,  not  to  mention  that  the  prophets  formed  no  corporate  body,  nay,  that  in 
Ivi.  10  the  mass  of  the  D"2V  are  designated  as  blind  and  ignorant,  and  as  dumb 
dogs  ? 

(6)  [The  passage  is  referred  to  a  future  individual  by  Bohl  and  Orelli ;  even  H. 
Schultz  (p.  753)  cannot  rid  himself  of  the  impression  that  the  assumjition  of  a 
mere  collective  does  not  do  justice  to  the  passage,  although  his  view  is  so  far 
vacillating  that  he  again  conceives  the  "  ideal  image  of  the  end  of  pious  Israel  re- 
o-arded  as  a  person,"  to  be  what  the  prophet  indicates.     His  view  therefore  is 


534  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    PKOPHETISM.  [§  234. 

scarcely  different  from  that  of  Riehin  (Messianic  PmpTiecy,  p.  189),  that  in  the 
ideal  person  of  the  Servant  of  God  the  Church  of  God  in  tlie  Old  Testament  is 
represented.  Hitzig's  view,  that  the  passage  refers  to  the  people  of  Israel  as 
being,  in  contrast  with  the  heathen,  relatively  righteous,  and  appointed  to  atone  for 
the  much  greater  sins  of  the  latter,  must  be  pronounced  im])ossible.  Anger  and 
Duhm  woidd  still  refer  it  to  the  better  part  of  the  nation,  or  ideal  Israel,  and  make 
the  sufferings  refer  to  the  Babylonian  captivity.] 

(7)  Isa.  iTii.  4  sq.  :  "  Surely  he  hath  borne  our  griefs  and  carried  our  sorrows, 
yet  did  we  esteem  him  stricken  of  God  and  afflicted.  But  lie  was  wounded  for 
our  transgressions,  he  was  bruised  for  our  iniquities,  the  chastisement  of  our 
peace  was  upon  him,  and  with  his  stripes  we  are  healed." 

(8)  [That  io*?  occurs  in  the  singular  for  w  is  unquestionable  (^comp.  xliv.  15). 
But  I  think  that  "''3J?  V^ri"^  in  Isa.  liii.  8  must  be  connected  with  what  precedes, 
thus  :  "  that  he  is  cut  off  out  of  the  land  of  the  living  for  the  transgression  of  my 
people,"  and  the  next  words  If^*?  -^'^-^  m\\?,t  then  be  explained  "a  blow  (=  one 
stricken)  for  them,"  or  since  the  p  in  V^i}^  also  extends  to  i'J.^  "  on  account  of 
the  blow  for  them"  (=  on  account  of  the  punishment  due  to  them). — For  the 
plural  1'jnb3  V.  9,  comp.  Ezek.  xxviii.  8,  where  the  King  of  Tyre  is  addressed  : 
"thou  diest  the  death  of  him  that  is  slain."  The  same  plural  occurs  in  Ezek. 
xxviii.  10.  It  is  the  plural  of  the  generic  idea,  D'niD  meaning  "kinds  of  death." 
Others  (even  Orelli)  read  Vjnio|  in  v.  9  as  having  the  meaning  of  ^'103  (heights) 
thus  :  "  they  appointed  for  him  with  the  rich  one  his  grave-mound,"  but  Ezek. 
xliii.  7  cau  be  appealed  to  in  support  of  this  only  by  an  incorrect  explanation]. 

§234. 

Continuation. 

What  has  been  said,  however,  still  leaves  it  an  open  question  whether  the 
prophet_igas  himself  conscious  that  this  servant  of  God,  who  atones  ly  his  sufferings 
for  the  sins  of  the  people,  is  indeed  the  Messiah,  i.e.  the  great  Son  of_Jhiyid.  A  de- 
cided answer  to  this  question  cannot  be  given  either  in  the  affirmative  or  nega- 
tive (1).  In  the  Book  Isaiah,  xl.  sqq.,  there  is  but  one  passage  (Iv.  3  sqq.)  in 
which  the  promise  to  David  is  returned  to.  The  statement  there  made,  that 
David  is  appointed  to  be  a  witness  and  a  commander  of  the  people,  may  be  com- 
bined with  liii.  13,  according  to  which  the  servant,  after  having  completed  his 
work  of  atonement,  divides  the  spoil  with  the  strong  (2).  But  the  connection  of 
the  two  views  is  certainly  not  fully  effected.  On  the  other  side,  however,  it  is 
not  true  that  the  prophet  divides  (as  Ewald  says)  the  secular  and  spiritual  sides  of 
the  notion  of  the  Messiah  between  Cyrus  and  the  servant  of  the  Lord.  For  though 
Cyrus  appears  indeed  as  a  Divine  instrument  for  the  deliverance  of  Israel,  and 
gives  glory,  as  a  heathen,  to  the  name  of  Jehovah,  he  is  not  brought  forward  as 
one  who  is  to  carry  on  unto  perfection  the  kingdom  of  God  upon  earth.  In  Zech- 
ariqh,  on  the  contrary,  the_Messiah  distinctly  appears  as  the  future  Redeemer  of 
the  people,  and_indeed  as  their  atoningjiigh  Priest.  This  is  the  case  first  in  ch. 
iii.  (comp.  §  200),  where  tlie  people  are  comforted  by  the  statement  that  God 
will  graciously  accept  the  priesthood  over  which  he  presides,  while  in  ver,  8  sq. 
it  is  further  declared  that  the  true  time  of  grace  is  still  future  ;  he  through 
whom  the  complete  absolution  of  the  people  (and  that  on  one  day)  is  to  be  ef- 
fected must  first  appear.     This  future  atoner  to  whom  the  present  priesthood  typ' 


§  234.]  THE    OFFICE    AKD    WORK    OF   THE    MESSIAH.  535 

ically  refers,  is  </<c  i>r«H(.'7(,  the  Son  of  l);ivi(l,  the  Messiah  (comp.  §  231).  Hence 
allusion  is  now  made,  vi.  9-l.j,  by  tlie  symbolical  action  of  crowning  the  high 
priest  Joshua  with  the  double  crown,  to  the  union  of  the  priestly  and  royal  digni- 
ties in  the  person  of  the  Messiah.  For  in  this  so  often  incorrectly  understood  pas- 
sage the  Branch  can  alone  be  the  subject  of  *^\r}],  ver.  13,  and  two  persons  are 
not  there  spoken  of  (3). 

The  Messiah  here  appears  as  an  atoning  Priest  ;  but  another  sj^ecial  feature  is 
added,  xii.  10-13.  The  prophet  declares  that  the  future  restoration  of  the  com- 
munion of  the  covenant  people  with  the  Lord  will  be  effected  on  His  part  by  the. 
outpouring  of  the  spirit  of  grace  and  supjilication,  and  on  that  of  the  people  by 
contrition  and  repentance  :  "I  will  pour  upon  the  house  of  David,  and  upon  the 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  the  spirit  of  grace  and  of  supplication  ;  and  they  shall 
look  upon  me  whom  they  have  pierced,  and  mourn  for  him,  as  one  mourneth  for 
his  only  son,  and  shall  be  in  bitterness  for  him,  as  one  that  is  in  bitterness  for  his 
first-born.  In  that  day  shall  there  be  a  great  mourning  in  Jerusalem,  as  the 
mourning  of  Hadadrimmon  in  the  valley  of  Megiddo."  Thus  much  is  clear  in 
this  much-misused  passage,  that  tho.  piercing  of  nnp.^  in  whose  person  the  Lord  is 
as  it  were  Himself  pierced,  is  spoken  of.  The  assassination  of  a  prophet,  as  Hit- 
zig  and  H.  Schultz  suppose,  is  very  far  from  being  intended.  The  pierced  one  must 
be  one  who  may  be  likened  to  king  Josiah,  with  whom,  when  he  was  mortally 
wounded  in  the  valley  of  Megiddo,  the  last  hope  of  the  nation  fell  (§  184).  And 
who  else  can  this  be  than  that  Shepherd  and  fellow  of  Jehovah,  who,  according 
to  xiii.  7,  fell  by  the  sword,  after  the  last  effort  of  deliverance  which  God  made 
through  him  had  proved  vain,  nay,  had  been  shamefully  requited,  xi.  4-14.  Jus- 
tice was  so  far  done  to  the  Messianic  interpretation  by  the  older  Jewish  theology, 
that  since  the  acknowledgment  of  a  suffering  and  dying  son  of  David  could  not 
from  its  standpoint  be  conceded,  it  invented  for  this  passage  a  second  ]\Iessiah, 
"the  Messiah,  the  son  of  Joseph,"  who  was  to  fall  in  the  conflict  with  Gog 
and  Magog.  Lastly,  with  respect  to  the  passage  Dan.  ix.  24  sqq.,  the  TJJ  n't^D, 
who  suffers  the  death  which  involves  Jerusalem  in  destruction,  is  indeed  under- 
stood by  one  set  of  interpreters  of  the  Messiah  (4).  This  is,  however,  opposed  by 
the  reference  of  the  whole  passage  to  the  Maccabean  period,  as  the  connection 
certainly  requires.  The  TjJ  H't^'O  who  perishes  is  then  regarded  as  the  assassin- 
ated high  priest  Onias  III.,  in  which  case,  however,  the  passage  would  still  have 
a  typical  reference  to  the  Messiah  (5). 

(1)  It  cannot  be  disputed  that  the  point  of  view  which  generally  occupies  the 
foreground  in  the  description  of  the  servant  is  not  the  completion  of  the  king- 
shipt  but  the  fuMlment  of  Israel's  national  vocation.  So  also,  in  the  description 
of  the  future  glory  of  the  church,  Isa.  Ix.  sq.,  the  kingship  is  no  longer  men- 
tioned. .  e        1,       a; 

(3)  Isa.  Iv.  3  sqq.  is  now  mostly  explained  so  as  to  make  it  transfer  the  ottice 
of  the  race  of  David  to  the  people.  But  it  is  also  possible  that  he  in  whom  David 
is  to  be  a  witness,  leader,  and  commander  to  the  peo])le  is  the  Messiah. 

(3)  [In  the  passage  Zech.  vi.  13,  "the  counsel  of  peace  shall  be  between  them 
both  "the  words  "them  both"  must  be  referred  to  the  two  ideas  of  ruler  and 
priest  ■  the  crowned  one  shall  be  ruler  and  jiriest,  and  thus  there  will  be  peace  be- 
tween the  ruler  and  priest.  Comp.  Orelli  on  the  passage.  On  the  other  hand,  Bohl 
explains  "  between  them  both"  =  between  Jehovah  and  the  Branch.] 


536  "CHi!  THEOLOGY   OP  PROPHETISM.  [§  234. 

(4)  See  Hengstenberg,  Ghristology,  iii.  p.  97  sqq. 

(5)  Comp.  Orelli  on  the  passage.  On  the  Messianic  doctrine  of  extra-canonical 
Judaism,  see  the  article  "  Messias"  in  Herzog  [and  Schiirer,  Neutesta- 
mentliche  Zeitgeschichte  §  39.  On  the  history  of  Messianic  interpretation  in  the 
Christian  Church,  comp.  the  work  of  Hengstenberg,  id.  iii.  133  sqq.  ;  see  also 
§  213,  note  9.] 


PART  m. 

OLD   TESTAMENT   WISDOM  (1). 


§  235. 

General  Pi-eliminary  Remarks. 

The  Old  Testament  wisdom  (npDn,  HkoMma)  forms,  with  the  law  and  prophecy 
(though  in  co-operation  with  the  latter),  a  special  department  of  knowledge,  to 
which  three  of  the  canonical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  viz.  Job,  Proverbs, 
and  Ecclesiastes,  and,  in  virtue  of  their  matter,  many  of  the  Psalms  also,  pre- 
eminently belong.  The  law  gives  the  commandments  and  claims  of  Jehovali. 
Prophecy  proclaims  the  ^nm-d  of  the  Lord,  which  reveals  ITis  counsels,  by  the  light 
of  which  it  explains  and  passes  judgment  upon  the  time  then  present,  and  discloses 
the  object  of  God's  mode  of  government.  The  Hhokhma  does  not  in  an  equal 
manner  refer  its  matter  to  direct  Divine  causation.  It  is  true  that  a  wise  and 
understanding  heart  is  the  gift  of  God  (comp.  such  passages  as  1  Kings  iii.  12, 
Eccles.  ii.  26),  and  the  spirit  of  man  is  the  candle  of  the  Lord  (Prov.  xx.  27)  (2)  ; 
but  the  proverb  niyO)  of  the  wise  is  the  product  of  his  own  experience  and 
tlxgught,  as  it  is  so  frequently  expressed,  and  not  a  word  of  God  in  tlie  stricter 
sense  of  the  term  (3).  The  position  of  wisdom  with  respect  to  revelation  is  rather 
as  follows.  Upon  the  soil  already  formed  by  the  facts  of  Divine  revelation  and 
the  theocratic  ordinances  (4),  springs  up  not  merely  a  practical  piety,  but  i\ja_jm,- 
2mlse^Jor^knowled(/e.  The  Israelitish  mind,  reflecting  upon  the  view  of  the  world 
presented  by  revelation,  and  the  life-task  prescribed  thereby,  follows  up  such 
thoughts  to  their  consequences,  and  thus  seeks  to  acquaint  itself  with  those  sub- 
jects also  which  are  not  directly  determined  in  revelation,  striving  especially  to 
obtain  light  concerning  those  enigmas  and  contradictions  of  life  which  are  at  all 
times  obtruding  themselves.  Thus  arises  what  the  Old  Testament  calls  Hopn. 
The  original  signification  of  the  root  DDH  being,  as  appears  from  the  Aral)ic 
Uakama,  to  make  fast,  to  hold  fast  (5),  the  word  Hhokhma  implies  that  amidst 
phenomena  niarTaTtains  to  sometlung  tixed  and  stable,  which  becomes  a  standard 
for  his  judgment.  The  Old  Testament  Hhokhma  has  been  styled  the  p/ijlompfiy 
of  the  HebreiPs.  And  undoubtedly  that  portion  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures 
which  bel(^g3  to  it  is  akin  to  the  philosophy  of  other  nations  ;  for  it  does  not 
concern  itself  with  the  ordinances  and  history  of  the  theocracy,  but  takes  as  its 
gubject,  on  the  one  hand,  cosmical  arrangements  and  natural  life,  and,  on  the 


538  OLD   TESTAMENT   WISDOM.  [§  235. 

other,  the  moral  relations  of  man.  Hence  these  two  provinces  of  the  Ilhokhma 
may  be  further  compared  with  the  physics  and  ethics  of  the  Greeks  ;  while,  on 
the  other  hand,  logic  or  anything  analogous  to  it  is  not  found  in  the  Old  Testament, 
nor  even  in  the  post-canonical  Jewish  wisdom  (Ecclesiasticus  and  the  Book  of 
Wisdom),  and  first  appears  to  some  extent  in  the  Tahnud.  Old.Testament  wisdom 
is  nevertheless  essentially  different  from  other  philosophy.  l£  is  based,  indeed, 
upon  the  observation  of  nature  and  of  human  affairs,  and  especially  in  the  latter 
respect  upon  experience  as  handed  down  by  the  ancients  ;  comp.  how  the  sources 
of  knowledge  are  described,  Job  xii.  7-12,  v.  27,  viii.  8  sq.  (Isa.  xl.  21,  28).  In 
such  investigations  of  nature  and  human  life,  however,  it  is  placed  under  a  reg- 
ulative factor  which  Greek  wisdom  does  not  possess  ;  it  starts  from  a  supernatu- 
ralistic  assumption  which  the  latter  lacks.  For  the  Greek  philosophy  seeks 
in  the  world  itself  the  ultimate  reasons  and  purposes  of  existence  ;  but  the  knowl- 
edge of  a  living  God  transcending  the  world,  of  the  almighty  Creator  and 
Governor  of  the  world,  of  the  holy  Lawgiver  and  righteous  Judge,  is,  for  the 
Old  Testament  wisdom  given  in  advance.  Hence  its  aim  is  not,  as  Bruch  very 
erroneously  thinks  (6),  to  present  a  wisdom  discovered  independently  of  revela- 
tion, and  thus  to  place  itself  above  revelation  (7)  ;  nor,  like  the  later  Jewish, 
especially  the  Alexandrian,  philosophy  of  religion,  to  combine  a  knowledge  else- 
where obtained  with  the  revealed  teaching  handed  down,  and  to  force  upon 
the  latter  such  interpretations  as  should  accord  with  the  former.  Its  mode  of 
procedure,  on  the  contrary^_is  to  endeavor,  by  means  of  that  key  of  knowledge 
whiclireveiation^^fToids,  better  to  understand  God^s  ways  in  the  world,  and, 
throu£yh  the  kno\Vledge  of  God's  will  furnished  by  the  law,  better  to  determine  the 
duties  of  human  life.  It  never  entered  into  the  mind  of  the  Old  Testament  sage 
to  prove^ the'existence  of  God  ;  for,  Ps.  xiv.,  it  was  the  fool  p3J)  who  said  in  his 
heart.  There  is  no  God.  Hence,  too,  the  ignorance  with  which  Old  Testament 
wisdom  begins  is  of  quite  a  different  kind  from  the  Socratic.  Compare  as  chief 
passage  in  this  respect  the  remarkable  saying  (Prov.  xxx.  1  sqq.)  of  Agur,  who, 
like  Socrates,  boasts  of  his  ignorance  as  compared  with  the  /ieTeupo?.6-yovg.  In  ver. 
1  the  text  must  probably  be  altered  (as  Hitzig  was  the  first  to  propose)  to  ''0'>?7 
'jp^J  %  '^"^)  %  (8)  :  "  I  troubled  myself  about  God,  troubled  myself  about  God, 
and  I  vanished  away,"  i.e.  all  his  efforts  to  fathom  the  Divine  Being  produced 
nothing,  so  that  he  ironically  declares  himself,  ver.  2  sq.,  beastly  dull  (K^'Xp  1^!?), 
one  who  has  no  human  understanding,  who  has  not  learned  wisdom,  nor  has  the 
knowledge  of  the  Holy.  Ver.  4  then  continues  :  "  Who  hath  ascended  up  into 
heaven,  and  descended  ?  who  hath  gathered  the  wind  in  His  fists  ?  who  hath 
1)ound  the  waters  in  a  garment  ?  who  hath  established  all  the  ends  of  the  earth  ? 
What  is  His  name,  and  what  is  His  son's  name,  if  thou  canst  tell  ?"  The  revealed 
word  is  now  referred  to  as  the  source  of  knowledge,  ver.  5  :  "  Every  word  of 
God  is  pure  :  He  is  a  shield  to  them  that  put  their  trust  in  Ilim.  Add  thou  not 
unto  His  words,  lest  He  reprove  thee,  and  thou  be  found  a  liar."  Thus  the  Old 
Testament  wisdom  begins  by  abasing  the  self-suflioicncy  of  natural  knowledge, 
and  giving  glory  to  Divine  revelation,  i.e.  it  begins  with  the  njri'  HX')''.  [the  fear 
of  the  Lord],  as  it  so  often  designates  its  subjective  'princii:>le  of  Icuovjledge  (comp. 
§240)  (9). 


§  236.]  GENEBAL  PRELIMINARY   REMARKS.  539 

(1)  Having  already,  in  the  description  of  the  times  of  Solomon  (§  169),  treated 
of  the  historical  origin  of  the  Illiokhma,  we  have  now  to  lay  down  the  essential 
features  of  its  matter.  Compare  also  my  Programme  :  Die  Gnuuhitge  der  allttest. 
Weisheit,  1854.  [Further,  Delitzscli,  Commentary  on  Proverhs,  Introduction,  §  4. 
On  the  justification  of  the  distinction  between  ])rophecy  and  Illioklima,  coinp. 
§  16,  also  the  thorough  discussion  of  Konig,  i.  194  sqq.,  which  may  be  read  in 
connection  with  this  and  the  succeeding  sections.] 

(2)  How  all  human  intelligence  is  derived  from  the  Divine  Spirit,  has  been  al- 
ready described  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Spirit  of  God  (§  65). 

(3)  The  passage  Prov.  xxx.  1  forms  only  an  apiwrent  exception.  It  is  proba- 
ble that  i^^'O  here  and  xxx.  1  is  a  proper  noun. 

(4)  We  have  repeatedly  alluded  to  tlie  fact  that  we  have  in  the  Old  Testament 
revelation,  comparatively  little  in  the  form  of  doctrine  properly  so  called.  Tlie  Di- 
vine thoughts  which  form  its  matter  are  for  the  most  part  impressed  upon  the  his- 
torical facts  by  which  they  are  effected,  and  upon  the  ordinances  which  they  have 
enacted. 

(5)  See  Schultens,  Be  defectibus  hodiernis  lingucB  hehrcece,  p.  404  sqq.  He  con- 
siders the  radical  meaning  of  nppn  to  be  densa  etfirma  compactio  =  -rrvKvoTtiq.  But 
it  \B  rather  a  mnlcing  fast ;  hence,  Arab.  hhdJcama,  dijtidicavit  controversifnn^  decre- 
vit,  potestatem  exercuit.  Comp.  Kimchi  on  1  Kings  iii.  12  :  D'-pDH  DDH  Vl"!  TIOK 
piIDI  nS3  D"1pO  nobly  no  O  noibj  niobn  m,  sapienK,  inquiunt  Fuihbini  vostri, 
quorum,  mem.  hened.  sit,  ille  est  qui  stare  facit  doctrinam  suam,  quasi  dicas,  quod 
quidquid  docet,  stabiie  est  in  corde  ejus  et  jiaratiim ;  also  Gusset:  sapientia  rum 
denotnt  cognitionem  ipsam,  sed  modiim  ac  gradum,  quo  quoilihet  cognitio  inest  animo. 
[The  word  is  explained  differently  by  a  reviewer  of  the  first  edition  of  this  work  in 
the  lAtterar.  Centralhlatt,  1874,  No.  32  :  "  The  Hebrew  terms  expressive  of  ethical 
ideas  go  back  continually  to  the  heart  as  the  seat  of  tlie  intellectual  and  moral 
faculties.  The  Hhokhma  is  therefore  firmness,  i.e.  ability  of  the  heart  and  con- 
sequently both  intellectual  and  practical  wisdom,  but  it  may  also  indicate  wisdom 
in  the  concrete  sense."] 

(6)  See  Bruch,  Weisheitslehre  der  Hehrder,  1851  ;  comp.  especially  p.  49. 

(7)  The  Books  of  Proverbs,  Job,  and  Ecclesiastes  not  only  presuppose  the  va- 
lidity of  the  law  ;  but  even  where  doubt  contends  with  the  doctrine  of  retribu- 
tion taught  by  the  law,  it  is  overcome — in  the  Book  of  .Job  by  the  corroboration 
of  fresh  facts,  and  in  Ecclesiastes  by  a  resigned  acknowledgment  of  the  legal 
standpoint ;  comp.  §§  248,  250. 

(8)  So,  too,  Zockler  in  his  excellent  Commentary  on  Proverbs.  [Delitzsch 
renders  the  passage  in  the  same  way,  but  takes  '^  as  vocative] 

(9).  [On  the  revelation  inlaw  as  the  source  of  wisdom,  comp.  Konig,  i.  203  sq.J 

§236. 

Continuation. 

But  how  now  does  the  Hhokhma  obtain  an  objective  principle  of  hiowledge? — - 
The  Israelitish  mind,  reflecting  on  the  acts  and  ways  of  God  as  handed  down,  on 
the  Divine  ordinances  by  whose  discipline  it  has  been  strengthened,  and,  compar- 
ing the  law  of  Israel  with  the  laws  and  statutes  of  heathenism,  attains  to  the  per- 
ception of  their  marvellous  adaptation  to  their  purpose.  Comp.  what  is  said  Deut. 
iv.  6  of  the  Mosaic  precepts  and  statutes  (§  84).  This  impression  of  the  adapta- 
tion  of  the  law  to  its  purpose  which  the  Israelitish  mind  received,  is  expressed  in 
numerous  passages  ot  the  Uld  Testament,  Ps.  cxlvii.  19  sq.,  xix.  8  sq.  (1),  but 
especially  Ps.  cxix.,  which  proclaims  in  176  verses  the  praises  of  the  law.  The 
Psalmist  is  conscious  of  the  ii^exhaustible  fulness  which  it  offers  to  thoughtful 


540  OLD   TESTAMENT   WISDOM.  [§  236. 

contemplation,  when  lie  prays,  ver.  18,  "  Open  Thou  mine  eyes,  that  I  may  be- 
hold wondrous  things  out  of  Thy  law"  (2),  From  the  perception  of  the  adapta- 
tion of  the  theocratic  ordinances  to  the  purpose  of  their  institution,  the  mind 
t^en  advances  to  the  thought  of  an  all-enibradng  and  all-ruling  purpose.  For  the 
Lord  of  the  theocracy  is  the  Creator  and  Preserver  of  the  universe,  and  the  order 
of  the  covenant  is  based  upon  the  order  of  the  world.  The  man  who  is  enlight- 
ened by  the  law,  perceives  in  nature  also  a  corresponding  Divine  adaptation  to 
purpose  ;  comp.  e.g.  howPs.  xix.  compares  the  revelation  of  nature  and  the  revela- 
tion of  the  law.  It  is  the  same  word  of  God  proclaimed  in  the  tlieocracy  as  law  and 
promise,  which,  as  a  word  of  command,  called  the  world  into  existence,  and  en- 
ergizes in  all  the  phenomena  of  nature.  See  the  passages  xxviii.  6,  comp.  with  ver,  4, 
cxlvii.  19  with  ver.  15,  and  with  cxlviii.  8,  already  cited  in  Pt.  I.,  where  the  doc- 
trine of  the  agency  of  the  Divine  word  in  creation  is  discussed  (§  50  and  §  52  with 
note  3).  The  purposes  and  government  of  God  being  then  recognized  outside  the 
theocracy  also,  the  universe  is  regarded  not  as  a  mere  pi;oduct  of  the^jowg/'  of  God, 
who  can  create  what  liQjwill  (cxv.  3,  cxxxv.  6),  but  as  the  pjodagt  of  "'a  Divine 
plan.  Thus  arises  the  thought  of  the  DivixiBjismloin  as  the  principle  of  the  world  ; 
and  this  it  is  which  is  the  oijective  principle  of  the  Ilhokhma.  The  task  now  pre- 
sented to  the  Israelitish  mind~was  to  show  tliat  a  Divine  teleology  exists  every- 
where, even  beyond  the  boundary  defined  by  the  theocratic  ordinances,- — a  task  to 
which,  in  prospect  of  the  inexhaustible  fulness  here  offered,  it  devoted  itself  with 
delight.  For  if  the  Psalmist,  when  viewing  the  ways  in  which  his  own  nation 
had  been  led,  could  exclaim,  xcii.  5,  "  O  Lord,  how  wondrous  are  Thy  works! 
Thy  thoughts  are  very  deep  !"  he  was  also  constrained,  on  contemplating  God's 
other  works,  to  exclaim,  civ.  24,  "O  Lord,  how  manifold  are  Thy  works!  in 
wisdom  hast  Thou  made  them  all !"  and  cxxxix.  17,  "  How  precious  are  Thy 
thoughts  unto  me,  O  God  !  how  great  is  the  sum  of  them  !"  (3). 

(1)  Ps.  cxlvii.  19  sq.  :  "  He  showed  His  word  unto  Jacob,  His  statutes  and  His 
judgments  unto  Israel.  He  hath  not  dealt  so  with  any  nation ;  and  as  for  His 
judgments,  they  have  not  known  them."  Ih.  xix.  7  sq.  :  "The  law  of  the  Lord 
is  perfect,  converting  the  soul  :  the  testimony  of  the  Lord  is  sure,  making  wise 
the  simple.  The  statutes  of  the  Lord  are  right,  rejoicing  the  heart :  the  com- 
mandment of  the  Lord  is  pure,  enlightening  the  eyes." 

(2)  Ps.  cxix.  is  a  collection  of  maxims,  alphabetically  arranged  for  the  purpose 
of  assisting  the  memory,  in  which  a  systematic  and  progressive  development  of  the 
several  thoughts  can  hardly  have  been  intended,  however  ingeniously  the  attempt 
to  point  out  such  a  connection  is  made  by  Oetinger,  Burk,  and  Delitzsch.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  certainly  instructive  to  trace  the  association  of  ideas  which 
may  be  recognized  in  the  grouping  of  the  separate  sayings.  The  praise  of  God's 
word,  as  alone  able  to  give  peace  and  success  ;  exhortations  to  unalterable  fidelity 
thereto,  even  amidst  shame  and  persecution  ;  prayers  to  God  for  illumination,  that 
God's  precepts  may  be  understood,  and  for  strength  that  they  may  be  fulfilled, — 
these  and  kindred  subjects  form  the  matter  of  these  apothegms,  which  furnish  an 
excellent  testimony  to  the  fact  that  a  vigorous  and  heartfelt  piety  could  strike  root 
in  that  zeal  for  the  law  which  was  revived  by  the  agency  of  Ezra.  The  psalm 
alludes  also  in  several  passages  to  the  hostility,  and  even  persecution,  to  which 
fidelity  to  the  law  was  exposed. 

(3)  The  fo7"m  peculiar  to  Old  Testament  wisdom  is  the  /^9  (proverb).  This 
expression  is  a^jplied  to  maxims  not  merely  in  its  narrower  sense  of  a  comparison, 
when  these  sayings  actually  contain  sirnilitudes  9,nd  figurative  language,  but  iu 


§  237.]       WISDOM  AS  AK  ATTRIBUTE  OF  GOD  Ilf  THE  UNIVERSE.  541 

its  more  general  meaning,  when  the  experiences  of  life  and  the  phenomena  of 
nature  are  compared  and  used  to  illustrate  each  other.  It  is  also  used  with  still 
higher  significance,  all  moral  action  being  measured  by  its  standard,  viz.  the  Divine 
■will.  Thus  Ps,  Ixxviii.  also  is,  in  ver.  2,  designated  us  a  '7!i'9,  because  God's 
dealings  with  Israel  are  therein  held  forth  as  a  mirror  for  warning  and  encourage- 
ment According  to  its  rudimental  form,  as  sustained  in  the  section  Prov.  x. 
1-xxii.  16,  the  mashal  consists  of  two  members,  the  thought  expressed  in  the  one 
being  in  the  second  made  evident  by  a  comparison,  or  completed  by  a  more  elab- 
orate explanation,  or  repeated  in  another  aspect,  or  elucidated  either  by  connec- 
tion with  some  kindred  idea,  or  by  the  bringing  forward  of  its  opposite.  By 
such  a  combination  of  an  object  with  its  image,  of  something  unknown  with  that 
which  is  more  current,  of  the  particular  with  tlie  general  in  which  it  is  to  be  in- 
cluded, or  even  with  other  particulars,  for  the  sake  of  proving  by  such  a  juxta- 
position of  the  homogeneous  the  universality  of  the  rule,  the  judgment  and  in- 
tellect are  awakened,  and  man  is  trained  to  observe  the  reasonable  connection 
always  existing  between  his  actions  and  their  results.  The  proverb  requires  con- 
cise and  exact  statement,  in  virtue  of  which  it  is  adapted  to  impress  itself  deeply, 
and  to  remain  fixed  in  the  mind,  "like  goads  and  nails  fastened,"  Eccles.  xii.  11. 
This  is  promoted  also  by  the  versification,  involving  as  it  does  such  strict  brevity 
of  expression,  the  maxims  in  the  collection  Prov.  x.-xxii.  containing  for  the  most 
part  but  seven  words  in  both  members,  generally  four  in  the  first  and  three  in  the 
second.  This  purpose  is  also  served  by  the  recurrence  of  certain  numbers  (3, 
4,  7,  etc.),  by  an  alphabetical  arrangement  met  with  in  ch.  xxxi.  10-13,  (the  de- 
scription of  the  excellent  woman),  and  in  certain  psalms,  whose  prevailing  char- 
acter is  didactic  (comp.  especially  Ps.  xxxiv.).  There  is  a  rhetorical  reason  for 
the  advance  from  lower  to  higher  numbers  "(from  3  to  4,  from  6  to  7)  in  certain 
numerical  proverbs  (Prov.  vi.  16-19,  xxx.  15  sq.,  18-20,  21-23,  29-31),  for  it 
helps  to  increase  the  attention  of  the  hearer,  and  to  place  the  chief  stress  upon  the 
last  thought.  The  alphabetical  arrangement,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a  mere  assist- 
ance to  the  memory,  of  the  same  kind  as  the  numerous  series  of  ten  precepts 
found  in  the  law  (comp.  §  85,  note  5).  The  Proverbs,  inasmuch  as  they  arouse 
the  moral  judgment,  and  propound  something  to  be  foimd  out,  have  also  been 
called  niTn,  riddles  (see  especially  Prov.  i.  6),  D'P'^'ni  D'ODP  '^31,  comp.  Hab. 
ii.  6.  That  the  latter  expression  does  not  merely  designate  the  pointed  form, 
but  really  means,  as  has  been  said,  that  something  is  to  be  found  out,  namely, 
the  idea  concealed  behind  the  image,  is  shown  by  the  use  of  the  word  in  Judg. 
xiy.  12  ;  1  Kings  x.  1  ;  Ezek.  xvii.  2  ;  comp.  also  Num.  xii.  8.  The  ethical  mean- 
ino-ofthe  word,  the  fact  that  it  is  designed  to  arouse  the  moral  judgment,  is 
specially  evident  from  Ps.  xlix.  5,  Ixxviii.  2.  [On  the  different  forms  of  the 
proverb  see  Delitzsch,  Commentary  on  the  Booh  of  Proverbs^  introduction,  §  2.] 


FIRST    SECTION. 
OBJECTIVE   DITINE  WISDOM. 

§  237. 
The  part  of  Wisdom  as  an  Attribute  of  Ood  in  the  Universe.     Its  Personification. 

That  the  Divine  intelligence,  the  Divine  votf,  is  employed  in  the  creation  and 
preservation  of  the  universe,  is  laid  down  as  a  general  proposition  in  Prov.  iii.  19 
so.  :  "The  Lord  by  wisdom  (noDn)  hath  founded  the  earth,  by  understanding 
(TIJOP)  hath  He  established  the  heavens.  By  His  knowledge  (pW^)  the  depths 
are  broken  up,  and  the  clouds  drop  down  the  dew."     In  other  words,  we  every- 


542  OLD   TESTAMENT   WISDOM.  [§  237. 

where  find,  as  the  passages  cited  ia  the  preceding  paragraph  express  it,  the  im- 
press of  the  Divine  thouglits.  Though,  however,  in  iii.  19  wisdom  appears  only 
as  an  attribute  of  God,  tlie  well-known  passage  viii._23  sqq.  goes  further,  J^is- 
dom  is  there  personified,  and  introduced  as  saying,  "The  Lord  prepared  me" 
(not  possessed  me,  njr?  signifying  comiMravit)  "  as  the  beginning  of  His  way"  {i.e. 
of  His  working  and  ruling),  "  before  His  works  (Q"1!p.  literally,  as  that  which 
preceded  His  works)  "of  old  (I^?).  I  was  set  up  from  everlasting  (1),  from  the 
beginning,  or  ever  the  earth  was."  Thus  wisdom  is  brought  forth  before  God 
created  the  world,  and  is  established  by  Him  to  preside,  as  Ruler  of  the  world, 
over  that  which  He  has  created.  For  it  is  further  said  ver.  27-31  :  "When  He 
prepared  the  heavens,  I  was  there  ;  when  He  set  a  circle  upon  the  face  of  the 
deep,  when  He  established  the  clouds  above,  when  He  strengthened  the  fountains 
of  the  deep,  when  He  gave  to  the  sea  His  decree  that  the  waters  should  not  pass 
His  commandment,  when  He  appointed  the  foundations  of  the  earth,  then  was  I 
(Wisdom)  with  Him  as  ({'''^i^,)  swperintendent  of  His  work  (ver.  30  sq.),  and  I  was 
a  delight  daily  (2),  sporting  (A.  V.  rejoicing)  always  before  Him,  sporting 
upon  His  earth,  and  my  delights  were  with  the  sons  of  men." — The  fact  that  the 
creative  agency  of  God  results  in  a  glad  complacency  iu  its  production  is  here 
represented  under  the  image  of  a  willing  and  cheerful  diversion  on  the  part  of 
the  pre-mundane  Hhokhma.  It  is,  so  to  speak,  a  pleasure  to  the  Creator  to 
call  the  infinite  abundance  of  the  world  into  existence.  Thus  much,  then,  is 
certain,  that  even  when  full  justice  is  done  to  the  poetical  element  in  the  per- 
sonification, wigrlam  ia  ^^^  \i)n^pr  \o  be  regarded  as  a  mere  attribute  of  God,  nor 
even  as  a  dependent  povrer,  but  as  that  creative,  arranging,  and  energizing 
thought  of  the  world  which  prnfppf1«  frnm  Gftrl,  and  is  '~'bj»'"*'wp  ^Y^n  ^^.  Him- 
.gelf,  or,  to  express  it  with  Delitzsch  in  a  more  concrete  manner,  as  the  reflection 
of  Gj^dlgJ^lan  of  the  world,  objective  to  Himself  (3).  That  wisdom  is  objective, 
even  with  respect  to  God,  is  evident  from  Job  xxviii.  12  sqq.,  the  second  chief 
passage  in  this  matter,  where,  after  it  has  been  stated  that  man,  though  he  is 
able  to  penetrate  to  the  depths  of  the  earth  and  bring  to  light  hidden  treasures, 
is  yet  incapable  of  discovering  wisdom,  and  possessing  himself  of  the  Divine 
thought  which  determines  the  order  of  all  things,  ver.  23  sq.  continues  :  "  Ood 
understandeth  the  way  thereof  {i.e.  of  wisdom)  and  He  knoweth  the  place  there- 
of. For  he  looketh  to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  and  seeth  under  the  whole  heaven." 
As  if  to  say  :  God  alone,  who  surveys  the  whole  creation  according  to  both  time 
and  space,  also  perfectly  knows  the  vital  law  which  rules  it,  the  thought  which 
determines  the  infinite  variety  of  the  world.  In  vers.  25-27  it  is  further  said  : 
"When  He  gave  weight  to  the  winds,  and  weighed  the  waters  by  measure  ; 
when  He  gave  a  law  to  the  rain,  and  a  way  to  the  lightning  of  the  thunder :  then 
did  He  see  her  (Wisdom)  and  declare  her  (literally,  numbered  her,)  prepared  her 
and  searched  her  out"  (4).  Here  it  is  very  evident  that  wisdom  is  the  plan  of 
the  universe  which  proceeded  from  God,  the  summary  of  those  thoughts  ac- 
cording to  which  all  things  were  fashioned,  and  which  has  itself  become  objec- 
tive to  God. 

Looking  upon  this  wisdom,  God  causes  the  fulness  latent  therein  to  come  forth 
and  be  developed  in  the  world  :  this  is  implied  by  the  expression  "  He  numbered 
it."     The  subsequent  expression,  "He  searched  it  out,"  alludes  to  the  depth  of 


§238.]  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT   VIEW    OF   NATURE.  543 

the  ideal  contents  latent  in  the  Ilhokhnia.  In  both  of  these  chief  passagNS  (Prov. 
viii.  and  Job.  xxviii.)  wisdom  is  the  principle  of  the  world  laid  down  by  God,  and 
not  a  creature  like  the  things  in  the  world,  its  coming  forth  from  God  being,  on 
the  contrary,  the  presupposition  of  the  world's  creation  (5).  We  cannot  go  further; 
but,  as  Nitzsch  expresses  it,  we  have  here  an  unmistakable  germ  of  the  ontological 
sejf-distinction  of  the  Godhead.  How  closely  the  Old  Testament  borders  upon 
actually  regarding  wisdom  as  a  personal  existence,  is  shown  more  especially  by  the 
remarkable  passage,  Job  xv^__7_sq.,  where  Eliphaz  says  to  Job,  "  Art  thou  the  first 
man  that  was  born  ?  Hast  thou  heard  the  secret  of  God  ?  and  dost  thou  restrain 
wisdom  to  thyself?"  The  meaning  of  the  question,  which  is  of  course  ironical, 
is  :  Art  thou  then  the  pre-mundane  wisdom  of  God  in  the  form  of  a  primeval  man, 
who,  elevated  like  wisdom  to  communion  with  God,  hast  dived  into  His  counsels, 
and  thus  mastered  the  knowledge  of  the  principle  by  which  the  world  is  ordered  ? 
How  are  we  here  reminded  of  the  uv  elg  tov  kSXttov-  tov  Qeov,  and  how  justly  has 
Ewald  found  in  this  passage  an  echo  of  the  subsequent  idea  of  the  Logos  !  (6). 

(1)  For  thus  must  'J?3DJ  be  understood,  as  in  Ps.  ii.  6,  and  not  as,  I  am  an- 
ointed, nor,  I  am  produced.  Let  it  be  remembered  that  ^'DJ  the  derivative  of 
1]D3  signifies  a  liege  lord. 

(2)  It  may  be  doubted  whether,  His  delight,  or.  Myself  full  of  delight.  Of 
late  the  latter  meaning  has  been  chiefly  accepted  :  so  also  Delitzsch. 

(3)  [Comp.  with  Prov.  viii.  22  sqq.  Ecclesiasticus  xxiv.,  also  Baruch  iii.  9  sqq. ; 
Wisdom  of  Solomon  ix.  9  ;  for  the  connection  between  the  New  Testament  repre- 
sentation of  the  Logos,  and  the  idea  of  objective  wisdom,  Ecclesiasticus  xxiv. 
4  is  especially  to  be  consulted.  While  Reuss,  §  403,  regards  Prov.  viii.  22  sqq. 
as  "already  lying  near  the  line  of  the  later  Jewish  speculation,  and  therefore  of 
post-exilic  origin,"  Ewald's  judgment  {Lehre  von  Oott^  iii.  p.  77)  is  :  "This  is  the 
highest  sweep  of  philosophical  thought  in  Israel  in  the  prime  of  its  free  national 
life."  The  placing  the  law  on  the  same  level  with  wisdom  in  Ecclesiasticus,  Ewald 
justly  regards  as  indicative  of  the  later  origin  of  this  book.] 

(4J  [Ver.  25  is  by  many  connected  with  the  preceding  ;  by  Dillmann  with  v.  24, 
by  Hitzig  with  v.  23.  Ewald  and  Dillmann  render  H"!!!?'!  in  v.  27,  "and  re- 
viewed it  over  ;"   Hitzig  :   "  and  pronoimced  it"  =  gave  to  it  the  name  of  HODn.] 

(5)  Hofmann,  Schriftbeweis,  i.  p.  9G  sqq.,  deviates  considerably  from  tliis  view 
of  the  passages  cited.  His  view  of  .lob  xxviii.  20  sqq.  especially  is  scarcely  in- 
telligible. He  regards  Job  as  speaking  here  not  of  the  Divine  wisdom,  but  only 
of  the  wisdom  which  man  lacks  ;  whence  also  the  final  ruin  of  the  ungodly  who 
now  enjoy  earthly  prosperity  is  explained.  This  explanation  is  confuted  by 
ver.  27. 

(6)  Perhaps,  too,  the  "  Son"  of  God  in  Prov.  xxx.  4  may  also  be  thus  explained,    i 

§238. 

The  Old  Testament   VieiD  of  Nature. 

The  doctrine  of  an  objective  Divine  wisdom,  just  discussed,  being  connected 
with  the  doctrine  of  omnipotence,  which  by  means  of  the  Divine  word  called  the 
world  into  existence  and  sustains  it,  the  world  is  not  regarded  merely  as  the 
product  of  power,  but  more  definitely  as  the  product  of  an  ahnigldij  u  ill  order  in  g 
all  in  conformity  icith  itspurpose.  Comp.  how  the  notions  oi  Divine  wisdom  and 
power  are  comDined  in  Jer.  xT  12,  li.  15.)  It  is  according  to  this  principle  that 
the  Old  Testament  view  of  nature  must  be  defined.     It  is  true  that  this  view  also 


544  OLD  TESTAMENT   WISDOM.  [§  238. 

admits  that  the  universe  was  raised  upon  a  chaos  (upon  the  restrained  forces  of 
nature).  But  this  chaos  was  not  (as  was  shown,  §  50,  in  the  doctrine  of  creation) 
a  principle  originally  independent  of  God  ;  nor  did  the  Cosmos  proceed  from  a 
struggle  of  the  ruling  principle  against  hostile  and  obscure  forces,  nor  do  such 
laboriously  vanquished  powers  lurk  in  the  background.  Even  in  the  poetical  al- 
lusions to  mythic  representations  of  hostile  and  especially  of  sidereal  powers  in  Job 
ix.  13,  xxvi.  13  sq.,  the  latter  appear  as  totally  incapable  of  resisting  God.  The 
ruling  omnipotence  is  here  placed,  as  we  have  said,  above  all.  He  who  said  to 
the  sea,  when  it  issued  forth  from  the  womb  of  the  earth,  "  Hitherto  shalt  thou 
come,  but  no  further  ;  and  here  shall  the  pride  of  thy  waves  be  stayed,"  xxxviii. 
11,  is  He  who  has  subjected  all  that  is  in  heaven  and  on  earth  to  His  i^ipip,  His 
laws  (ver.  33,  comp.  Jer.  xxxi.  35,  xxxiii.  35),  and  who  makes  the  course  of 
nature  subserve  His  purpose.  This  purpose  is,  in  general  (see  §  53),  the  mani- 
festation of  the  Divine  glory.  Hence  the  whole  course  of  the  universe,  from  the 
hour  of  creation,  when,  according  to  Job  xxxviii.  7,  the  morning  stars  sang  to- 
gether, and  all  the  sons  of  God  shouted  for  joy,  has  been  a  continuous  song  of 
praise  of  this  glory  of  God,  a  song  in  which  all  earthly  creatures  unite  in  one 
choir  with  the  heavenly  host,  Ps.  cxlviii.  But  the  order  of  nature  is  further 
placed  in  close  connection  with  the  moral  order  of  the  world.  What  the  Mosaic 
doctrine  of  retribution  teaches  (see  §  89)  concerning  this  connection,  viz.  that 
the  course  of  nature  subserves  the  purpose  of  Divine  justice,  is  maintained  to  its 
full  extent  in  the  Hhokhma.  It  may  here  suffice  to  refer  to  the  description  in 
Job  xxxvii.  12  sq.,  where  God  stands  as  it  were  in  the  midst  of  the  elementary 
forces  which  rule  in  the  storm,  and  where  it  is  said  :  "  He  turns  himself  round 
about  with  His  guidance,  that  they  may  do  whatsoever  He  commandeth  them, 
over  the  universe  down  to  the  earth,  whether  for  a  rod,  when  it  is  for  the  land, 
or  whether  for  mercy  He  causeth  it  to  come  (upon  the  earth)"  (1). 

And  yet  that  glory  of  God  which  man  perceives  in  the  world,  that  great  teleo- 
logical  connection  which  he  recognizes  therein,  is  but  a  small  portion  of  the 
whole,  only  a  weak  reflection  of  that  glory.  He  finds,  indeed,  everywhere  traces 
of  the  Divine  wisdom,  but  he  is  not  capable,  as  above  remarked  (§237),  of  fully 
comprehending  it.  Job  xxxviii.  The  very  abundance  of  that  which  he  does  know, 
makes  him  conscious  that  an  infinitely  greater  abundance  escapes  his  knowledge. 
"Lo,  these  are  the  ends,  ^''^p,  the  barest  outlines,  as  it  were,  of  His  ways  ;  and 
what  is  the  whisper  which  we  perceive,  and  the  thunder  of  His  power  who  can 
understand?"  are  the  words  with  which  one  of  the  most  sublime  descriptions  in 
the  Book  of  Job  concludes  (xxvi.  14^  comp.  xi.  7  sq.).  The  whole  course  of 
interrogation  to  which  Job  was  subjected  was  calculated  to  bring  him  to  a  con- 
sciousness of  the  limits  of  human  wisdom  even  in  natural  things,  and  especially 
with  respect  to  the  paradoxes  of  natural  phenomena. 

(1)  [Many,  with  Dillmann  and  Hitzig,  refer  t^lH  in  ver.  12  to  3;^^  and  \}V^  in  the 
preceding  verse,  "  it  (the  cloud)  turns  itself  hither  and  thither  according  to  His  di- 
rection."] The  contents  of  many  of  the  psalms  touch  on  this  matter,  especially 
Ps.  civ,,  to  which  I  will  not  here  further  refer. 


§  239.]  THE   COi^TllOL   OF   WISDOM   IN   HUMAN    AFFAIIiS.  545 

§  239. 

The  Control  of  Wisdom  in  Human  Affairs. 

Not  only  nature,  hwtjmman  affairs^  are  controlled  by  wisdom  as  an  obifictive 
Diviae  principle.  That  same  wisdom  which  is  the  governino^  principle  of  the 
universe,  has  taken  up  its  abode  on  earth,  and  rules  as  a  sovereign  all  the  events 
of  life,  in  which  a  Divine  design,  and  therefore  Divine  intelligence,  is  everywhere 
perceptible.  And  this  is  true  without  regard  to  the  theocracy,  with  which  the 
wisdom  of  the  canonical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  does  not  concern  itself.  It 
is  in  the  post-canonical  monuments  of  Hebrew  wisdom  that  we  first  find  the 
objective  wisdom  regarded  also  as  the  principle  of  revelation  in  the  stricter  sense. 
It  is  thus  viewed  in  the  Book  of  Ecclesiasticus,  where,  in  ch.  xxiv.  10s(jq.,  instead 
of  the  i^resence  of  the  Shekhinain  the  sanctuary  we  find  the  dwelling  of  the  Divine 
wisdom  upon  Mount  Zion.  "Wherever  law  and  government  exist  in  the  world,  they 
are  an  outcome  of  the  Hhokhma.  "  By  me"  it  is  introduced  assaying,  Prov.  viii. 
16,  "  princes  rule,  and  nobles,  even  all  the  judges  upon  earth. "  Very  significantly 
is  wisdom,  when  making  itself  known  to  men,  called,  Prov.  i.  20,  ix.  1,  ^''f^^n, 
which  must  not  be  regarded,  as  by  Ewald  and  Ztickler,  as  a  singular  form  for 
niDpn,  for  r\i0.pn  is  construed  not  merely  as  a  singular,  but  also  as  a  plural.  The 
expression  denotes  rather  that  the  Divine  wisdom  includes  all  kinds  of  wisdom, 
and  therefore  especially  the  moral  forces  by  which  human  life  is  directed.  This 
Hhokhmoth,  according  toix.  1  sqq.,  builds  her  house  with  seven  pillars,  and  sends 
forth  her  maidens  to  the  high  places  of  the  city  to  invite  to  her  banquet.  She 
herself  also  appears,  i.  20  sqq.,  in  the  streets  and  public  places  of  the  town,  and 
calls  the  ignorant  to  come  unto  her.  This  may,  as  already  remarked,  §  169,  refer 
in  the  first  place  to  the  fact  that  in  the  public  places,  where  justice  was  adminis- 
tered and  public  business  transacted,  sages  were  wont  to  speak  and  prophets  to 
preach,  etc.  ;  but  it  also  implies  generally  that  the  appeals  of  Divine  wisdom  are 
ever  being  uttered  to  man  in  all  human  transactions,  and  even  in  the  ordinary 
events  of  life  ;  that  to  all  who  will  but  see  and  hear,  the  wise,  righteous,  and 
holy  government  of  God  makes  itself  evident.  If  we  inquire  more  closely  as  to 
the  means  hy  which  icisdo^n  makes  her  aiqieal  to  man^  i.  23  again  points  to  those  fac- 
tors of  revelation,  the  word  and  the  Spirit :  "  Behold,  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit 
upon  you  ;  I  will  make  known  my  words  unto  j'ou."  And  indeed  the  word  is  the 
vehicle  of  the  Spirit.  The  effect  of  this  upon  men  is  first  designated  as  instruc- 
tion, ID^O.  The  idea  of  instruction  is  one  of  the  fundamental  ideas  of  the  Prov- 
erbs of  Solomon, — one  of  the  seven  pillars  (ix.  1),  as  Oetinger  says,  upon  which  the 
house  of  wisdom  is  supported.  Wisdom  and  instruction  are  inseparably  connect- 
ed i.  2,  7,  xxiii.  23  ;  the  way  to  wisdom  is  called,  i.  3,  a  reception  of  instruction 
(xix.  20).  The  preservation  of  wisdom  is  only  possible  by  taking  fast  hold  of  in- 
struction, iv.  13,  X.  17,  etc.  The  idea  of  "^DID  must  by  no  means  be  weakened  and 
reduced,  as  is  often  the  case,  to  the  notion  of  doctrina,  institution  since  it  is  evident 
from  ill.  11  that  the  word  is  also  used  for  the  discipline  of  sorrow-,  in  xiii.  24,  xxii. 
15  for  the  correction  of  children,  and  that  instruction  begins  with  r>n3i/1.  nnDlfl, 
from  n''^'''^  =  ileyxeiv,  is  the  admonition,  which  both  convinces  and  rebukes,  of  i. 


646  OLD   TESTAMEKT   WtSDOM.  [§  240. 

23,  XXV.  30,  and  many  subsequent  passages.  For  the  connection  of  the  two  ideas 
see  iii.  11,  v.  13,  x.  17,  xii.  1,  xiii.  18,  xv.  5,  and  elsewhere.  Consequently  it  is  with 
this  instruction  or  reproof  that  the  educational  agency  of  wisdom  uj^on  man  must 
begin  ;  for  man  is  by  nature  ignorant  of  the  way  of  salvation,  and  easily  seduced 
to  evil,  or,  as  the  expression  is,  'P^p  (i.e.  one  standing  open),  simple  ;  comp.  i.  4, 
33,  and  other  passages.  Hence  the  worthlessness  of  his  natural  efforts  must  be 
revealed  to  him  by  the  light  of  God's  law,  and  he  must  be  convinced  of  the  per- 
niciousness  of  those  ungodly  ways  in  which  he  is  walking.  He  who  will  not  be 
convinced,  who  in  his  self-sufficiency  will  not  receive  the  reproofs  of  instruction, 
nay,  hates  them,  shows  himself  thereby  to  be  a /ooZ,  7'P3  ('"l^),  nay  ^J^3,  xii.  1, 
brutish,  and  is  in  his  incorrigibleness  hastening  to  irretrievable  ruin  (i.  34  sqq., 
xiii.  18,  etc.).  He  who  fears  God,  on  the  other  hand,  submits  to  this  reproof  of 
instruction,  resolutely  turns  from  those  evil  ways  to  which  his  natural  inclinations 
and  the  evil  example  of  others  seek  to  seduce  him,  and  so  walks  in  the  way  of 
wisdom,  i.  8  sqq.  Thus,  after  tracing  the  control  of  objective  wisdom,  we  come 
to  its  subjective  point  of  departure. 


SECOND    SECTION.- 
SUBJECTIVE   HUMAN  WISDOM. 

§  240. 
The  Fear  of  tJie  Lord  the  Subjective  Principle  of  Wisdom. 

The  subjective  principle  of  wisdom  is,  then,  tJie  fear  of  the  Lord :  "  The  fear  of 
the  Lord  is  the  beginning  of  knowledge,  Prov.  i.  7  ;  "  The  fear  of  the  Lord  is  the 
beginning  of  wisdom,"  ix.  10  ;  comp.  Ps.  cxi.  10,  Job  xxviii.  38.  This  fear  of 
the  Lord  is  not,  as  Hegel,  e.g.,  has  defined  it  (1),  a  blind,  gloomy,  passive  relig- 
ious emotion,  produced  merely  by  the  idea  of  an  absolute  power  which  utterly 
negatives  human  nature  as  such, — a  definition  applicable  to  the  fear  of  God  only 
in  the  sense  of  Islam,  a  system  which  renounces  all  free  self-determination.  The 
fear  of  Jehovah  is  rather,  as  it  is  called  Prov.  ix.  10,  D''?'^p  ^J^l,  '■'the  Tcnowl- 
edge  of  the  All-Holy.''''  The  Divine  holiness,  however,  is,  as  was  shown  in  Pt.  L 
(§  45),  absolute  perfection,  not  merely  in  the  sense  of  separateness  from  all  creat- 
ed beings,  and  incomparable  exaltation  above  them,  in  virtue  of  which  it  passes 
the  sentence  of  vanity  upon  all  that  is  finite,  but  still  more  decidedly  in  that  of 
separateness  from  all  the  impurity  and  sinfulness  of  the  creature.  But  it  is  not 
this  alone  ;  for  God,  as  the  Holy  One,  is  not  only  separate  from  the  world,  but 
also  imparts  Himself  thereto,  for  the  purpose  of  abolishing  its  sin,  and  giving  it 
a  share  in  His  perfection  ;  in  pursuance  of  which  design  He  has  sanctified  to 
Himself  a  people,  i  e.  separated  them  from  the  world  and  taken  them  as  a  posses- 
sion, and  these  He  leads  and  governs  in  conformity  with  His  plan  of  salvation. 

This  Divine  holiness  addresses  itself,  in  that  law  which  reveals  the  perfect  will 
of  God,  to  the  free  will  of  man.  Consequently  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  as  the 
knowledge  of  the  All-Holy,  has  nothing  to  do  with  this  gloomy  passivity  ;  but — 
presupposing  the  covenant  relation  into  which  He  has  entered  with  His  people 


§  341.]  PRACTICAL   WISDOM.  647 

—is  based  upon  tliat  will  of  God  wlii(-li  opposes  all  selfish  and  sinful  human 
efiForts,  and  appoints,  in  confoimitj'  with  His  purpose  of  salvation,  an  end  and 
measure  to  all  things  ;  it  is  the  dread  of  disobeying  this  holy  will  of  God. 
Hence  it  involves,  according  to  the  just  definition  of  its  moral  characteristics, 
viii,  13,  "hatred  of  evil,  pride,  arrogancy,  and  the  evil  way."  From  this  fear 
of  God  proceeds  also  the  effort,  first,  to  perceive  in  everything  the  end  designed 
by  the  Divine  will  ;  and,  secondly,  to  realize  it  in  every  action,  as  it  is  said,  ch. 
iii.  6,  "  In  all  thy  ways  acknowledge  Him."  The  former  maybe  called  theoreti- 
cal, the  latter  practical  wisdom.  Thus  the  fear  of  God  is  the  beginning  of  wis- 
dom, whose  starting-point  accordingly  is  not  the  autonomy  of  the  reason  and  the 
will,  which  would  be  that  very  leaning  on  our  own  understanding,  that  being 
wise  in  our  own  eyes,  against  which  we  are  so  earnestly  warned,  e.g.  iii.  5,  7 
(comp.  xii.  15,  etc).  The  wise  man,  on  the  contrary,  shares  in  the  restraints  and 
obligations  imposed  on  the  servants  of  God  (2),  and  is  at  all  times  and  under  all 
circumstances  conscious  of  them.  It  is  in  this  sense  that  it  is  said,  xxviii.  14, 
"Happy  is  the  man  that  feareth  always  (^^^  "TISO),"  i.e.,  lest  he  transgress  the 
will  of  God,  in  contrast  with  the  iS?  HK/pp,  the  man  who  hardens  himself  against 
God's  commands  in  the  service  of  sin.  The  wise  man's  servitude  is  not,  however, 
a  slavish  one,  but  rather  a  relation  of  intimacy  with  God,  Ps.  xxv.  14.  The 
friendship  (familiaritas)  of  the  Lord  is  for  them  that  fear  Him  O'?"?.'/  ^)P\  '^^^)> 
with  which  compare  the  saying  in  Prov.  iii.  33  OTID  Cl^/'^-nX). 

§241. 

Practical  Wisdom. 

Subjective  wisdom,  though  by  no  means  excluding  theoretical  questions  (1),  is 
yet  for  the  most  part  practical,  and  bent  upon  accomplishing  the  holy  will  of  God 
in  human  life.  Since,  how^ever,  this  will  of  God  aims  not  only  at  the  external 
consecration  of  the  life,  but  also  at  the  sanctijication  of  the  heart  and  temper  (2), 
the  ethics  of  the  Old  Testament  doctrine  of  wisdom  do  not  treat  only,  as  has  been 
so  often  supposed,  of  a  restoration  of  an  external  legality  of  conduct.  The  fol- 
lowing comparison  of  passages  from  both  may  suffice  to  show  that  there  is  in  this 
respect  no  difference  between  the  Psalms  and  the  precepts  of  the  Hhokhma. 
The  Psalmist,  Ps.  cxxxix.  23,  prays  to  the  all  knowing  God:  "Search  me,  O 
God,  and  know  my  heart  ;  try  me,  and  know  my  thoughts."  And  David  says, 
li.  6  :  "Behold,  Thou  desirest  truth  in  the  inward  parts,  and  in  the  hidden  part 
Thou  shalt  make  me  know  wisdom,"  which  probably  refers  to  inw^ard  sincerity 
and  purity  (3)  ;  and  prays  to  God  for  forgiveness  of  sin,  for  inward  cleansing 
and  renewing,  that  this  state  of  heart  maybe  induced  ;  and,  finally,  in  Ps.  xxxii., 
penitent  confession  of  sin  and  the  seeking  of  pardon  from  God  are  required  as 
the  indispensable  conditions  of  the  way  of  salvation,  and  their  oppositcs  designat- 
ed as  brutish  irrationality.  With  all  this  the  ethics  of  the  Book  of  Proverbs 
entirely  agree,  by  seeking  to  arouse  the  fear  of  God,  the  all-seeing  Searcher  of 
hearts,  as  the  following  passages  show  :  (xv.  11)  "  Hell  and  destruction  are  before 
the  Lord;  how  much  more,  then,  the  hearts  of  the  children  of  men?"  (xvi.  2) 
"  All  the  ways  of  a  man  are  clean  in  his  own  eyes  ;  but  the  Lord  weigheth  (f?r«) 


54^  OLD  TESTAMENT   WISDOM.  [§  242. 

the  spirits,"  i.e.  tests  them  according  to  their  value  ;  (xvii.  3)  "The  fining  pot 
is  for  silver,  and  the  furnace  for  gold  ;  but  the  Lord  trieth  the  hearts."  Among 
the  seven  things  that  the  Lord  hateth  is,  vi.  18,  "a  heart  that  deviseth  wicked 
imaginations."  In  xx.  9  conviction  of  sin  is  required:  "Who  can  say,  I  have 
made  my  heart  clean,  I  am  pure  from  my  sin?" — words  which  are  not  to  be  ex- 
plained :  I  have  from  my  birth  maintained  purity  of  heart  ;  they  really  deny 
(Zockler)  man's  purity  and  freedom  from  sin,  a«  expressed  Eccles.  vii.  20 : 
"There  is  not  a  just  man  upon  earth,  that  doeth  good  and  sinneth  not."  Hence 
Prov.  xxviii.  13  declares  the  duty  of  confessiiig  sin,  and  the  hapj^iness  of  obtain- 
ing/orp'i'yeness ;  "He  that  covereth  his  sins  shall  not  prosper;  but  whoso  con- 
fesseth  and  forsaketh  them  shall  have  mercy."  Sacrifice,  as  a  mere  opus  operatum, 
is  rejected,  xv.  8  :  "  The  sacrifice  of  the  wicked  is  an  abomination  to  the  Lord" 
(xxi.  27),  comp.  xxi.  3  (4)  ;  as  it  is  also  said,  Eccles.  v.  1,  that  to  go  into  the 
house  of  God  to  hear  is  better  than  when  fools  bring  a  sacrifice.  Thus  it  is  evi- 
dent why,  among  the  exhortations  in  Prov.  iv.  23  sqq.,  this  is  placed  first :  "Keep 
thj  heart  with  all  diligence,  for  out  of  it  are  the  issues  of  life  ;"  i.e.,  as  the  heart, 
whence  the  blood  flows,  and  to  which  it  returns,  is  the  abode  of  physical  life,  so 
with  respect  to  man's  moral  life,  everything,  after  all,  depends  upon  the  heart, 
the  disposition  of  man.  [The  passage  may  be  rendered  :  "more  than  all  that  thou 
guardest."  So  the  Dutch  version  :  "  above  all  that  is  to  be  guarded."— D.]  Then 
follow  the  precepts  :  ' '  Put  away  from  thee  a  fro  ward  mouth,  and  perverse  lips 
put  far  from  thee,"  etc.  The  catalogue  of  Job's  virtues  in  Job  xxxi.,  from  which, 
indeed  (in  keeping  with  the  progress  of  the  poem),  humility  is  absent,  bears 
nevertheless  testimony  to  the  view  of  moral  excellence  as  having  its  seat  in  the 
disposition  (5). 

(1)  Evidence  of  this  is  given  in  §  237,  where  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  wisdom 
as  the  principle  of  the  arrangement  of  the  world  is  discussed.  Further  on  it  will 
be  shown  (§  245  f.)  how  Old  Testament  wisdom,  following  up  the  thought  of  the 
law,  arrives  at  metaphysical  problems,  and  produces  a  religious  speculation,  which 
struggles  to  break  through  the  limits  of  Old  Testament  revelation,  and  to  work 
its  way  to  a  higher  knowledge. 

(2)  Comp.  the  doctrine  of  the  law,  §  84. 

(3)  I  now  thus  explain  Ps.  li.  6  with  the  most  recent  expositors,  and  abandon 
the  view  given  in  my  Programme,  p.  10  (on  the  disclosure  of  the  deeper  meaning 
of  the  law),  already  cited. 

(4)  Prov.  xxi.  3  :  "  To  do  justice  and  judgment  is  more  acceptable  to  the  Lord 
than  sacrifice  ;"  in  which  passage,  however,  as  well  as  in  kindred  passages  from 
the  Psalms  and  Prophets,  no  absolute  rejection  of  sacrificial  service  is  expressed  ; 
comp.  §  201  (see  Programme  cited). 

(5)  This  chapter  contains  many  parallels  with  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

§  243. 
Continuation. 

Notwithstanding  what  has  been  said,  it  must  be  confessed  that  the  wisdom  of 
the  Proverbs  is  chiefly  concerned  with  the  sphere  of  the  external  life,  and  that  its 
main  purpose  is  to  point  out,  in  all  the  relations  of  civil  and  domestic  life,  down 
to  the  circumstances  of  ordinary  intercourse,  the  course  of  action  conformable  to 


§  ^^^-J  PRACTICAL  WISDOM.  649 

the  will  of  God,  and  tlms  to  apply  the  saying,  Prov.  iii.  G  :  nj^TT  -yp-jn-bpa,  "  In 
all  thy  ways  Beum  rcspice  et  cum.''  The  wise  man  proves  himself  to  be  such  by 
living  like  one  who  is  constantly  reflecting  on  the  purposes  of  God.  Hence  nr3, 
the  gift  of  discerning  between  good  and  evil,  the  harmful  and  the  salutary  ;  nmrp' 
the  intelligence  always  able  to  counsel  aright ;  npn;;,  cunning  in  its  nobler  sense 
of  skill  in  the  choice  of  the  means  best  fitted  to  the  end  in  view,— are  declared  to 
be  the  prominent  virtues  of  the  wise.  The  quality  mentioned  i.  5,  niV^nn,  the 
art  of  steering,  the  power  of  wisely  directing  one's  course  of  life,  is  very  charac- 
teristic. The  ethics  of  the  Proverbs  are  certainly,  in  virtue  of  their  principle,  viz. 
the  fear  of  violating  God's  will,  of  an  undeniably  negative  character,  and  present, 
by  reason  of  the  constant  reflection  upon  the  end  designed  by  that  will  which 
they  require,  an  appearance  of  coldness  and  extreme  moderation.  The  impelling 
power  of  love  is  wanting  as  a  motive  (comp.  §  84).  Wc  should  seek  in  vain  in 
Proverbs  for  such  sayings  as,  "I  heartily  love  Thee,  O  Lord,  my  strength,"  Ps. 
xviii.  1  (Ixxiii.  25  sq.),  etc.  Enthusiasm  is  alien  to  the  sage,  as  possibly  involv- 
ing an  element  unsuited  to  the  purpose  to  be  attained  ;  while  everything  tending 
to  disturb  the  prescribed  equilibrium — all  rashness  and  precipitation— are  utterly 
detested  by  him.  It  is  said,  xiv.  15  :  "  The  simple  believeth  every  word  ;  but 
the  prudent  (D'"';',)  looketh  well  to  his  going;"  xiv.  29  :  "He  that  is  slow  to 
wrath  is  of  great  understanding  ;  but  he  that  is  hasty  of  spirit  showeth  much 
folly."  Hence  it  is  especially  words  and  gestures  which  the  wise  man  must  con- 
trol,—-xi.  12  sq.  :  "  He  that  is  void  of  wisdom  manifests  contempt  for  his  neigh- 
bor ;  but  a  man  of  understanding  holdeth  his  peace.  A  talebearer  revealeth 
secrets  ;  but  he  that  is  of  a  faithful  spirit  concealeth  the  matter  ;"  x.  10  :  "He 
that  winketh  with  the  eye  (a  gesture  expressing  derision)  causeth  sorrow  ;  and  a 
prating  fool  shall  fall  (rushes  to  destruction)."  Death  and  life  are  declared, 
xviii.  21,  to  be  in  the  power  of  the  tongue. 

In  consequence  of  this  negative  character,  it  is  rather  justice  than  love  which 
is  the  duty  a  man  owes  to  his  neighhor  ;  it  has  even  been  made  a  matter  of  reproach 
against  the  ethics  of  these  maxims,  that  they  sometimes  border  upon  the  recom- 
mendation of  a  selfish  prudence.  It  must  not,  however,  be  forgotten,  in  consid- 
ering the  frequent  warnings  against  suretyship,  vi.  1-4,  xi.  15,  17,  xviii.  22,  26 
sq.,  which  are  here  referred  to,  that  in  the  then  existing  state  of  law,  indiscretion 
in  this  respect  might  involve  even  the  loss  of  personal  liberty.  There  is  a  marked 
difference  between  the  Book  of  Proverbs  and  the  son  of  Sirach  who,  in  the  midst 
of  many  admirable  precepts,  does  appeal  in  an  actually  offensive  manner,  to  self- 
ish motives.  Nor  is  the  former  book  without  numerous  maxims  which  relate 
to  the  practice  of  those  duties  resulting  from  the  j^^i'^ciple  of  love,  placability 
being  inculcated,  e.g.,  x.  12  ;  the  love  of  enemies,  xxv.  21  sq.  ;  peaceableness, 
xvii.  14,  XX.  3  ;  gentleness  and  patience,  xv.  1,  18  ;  forbearance  to  the  poor,  xxii. 
22,  in  impressing  which  last  named  virtue,  it  is  expressly  started  that  their  Creator 
is  honored  in  the  poor,  xiv.  31,  xvii.  3  (1).  The  state  of  the  man  who  devotes 
himself  to  wisdom  is  designated  by  the  word  n'^B'in.  This  expression,  which  is 
peculiar  to  the  Hhokhma,  is  derived  from  ^.  {hnapx^i-v),  and  hence  properly 
denotes  essentiality,  reality  (2).  It  is  used  in  both  a  subjective  and  objective 
sense,— in  the  former,  parallel  with  npon,  along  with  nv;'.,  rrpirp,  HJO,  nnOJ^ 


^§0  OLD  TESTAMENT  WtSDOM.  [§  243. 

comp.  such  passages  as  iii.  21,  viii.  14  ;  in  an  objective  sense  with  n*ll^.,  help, 
Job  vi.  13,  and  with  pp,  shield,  Prov.  ii.  7.  The  expression  is  used  to  signify 
that,  while  fools  consume  themselves  in  vain  efforts,  and  hence  obtain  only  that 
which  is  worthless,  the  wise  man,  on  the  contrary,  has  something  real  and  firm 
in  his  feelings  and  actions  (3),  and  so  obtains  possession  of  that  which  is  solid 
and  enduring.  And  this  brings  us  to  the  statement  of  what  that  good  is  wherein 
the  reward  of  wisdom  consists. 

(1)  Similar  passages  will  be  found  in  the  31st  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Job, 
quoted  in  the  preceding  section. 

(3)  [So  the  word  is  explained  by  Dillmann  on  Job  v.  12,  while  Hitzig  on  the 
passage,  and  also  on  Prov.  iii.  21,  going  back  to  the  stem  T^W  to  ie  even,  like, 
makes  the  word  signify  the  agreement  of  the  being  with  the  thinking,  and  of  the 
thinking  with  the  being  ;  it  would  then  mean,  the  hitting  the  right  thing. 
Delitzsch  on  Prov.  ii.  7  rejects  this  latter  explanation,  because  it  wanders  over, 
without  necessity,  to  another  etymology  ;  but  against  the  derivation  from  K?'  he 
objects  that  no  analogy  supports  such  a  formation,  and  that  the  '  in  tJ'?.  does  not 
represent  a  1 .  He  explains  H'tJ'iri  as  a  Hiphil  formation  from  HK/in  =  to  bring 
about,  to  further,  and  so  comes  to  the  fundamental  meaning  of  "  furtherance."] 

(3)  Because  the  Divine  purpose  is  that  which  alone  is  stable  and  the  wise  man 
alone  aims  at  this  Divine  purpose,  Prov.  xix.  21  :  "There  are  many  devices  in  a 
man's  heart ;  nevertheless  the  counsel  of  the  Lord,  that  shall  stand." 


THIRD    SECTION. 
MORAL,   GOOD, 

§  243. 
Its  Realization  in  the  Individual  Life. 

The  teaching  of  the  HhoTchma  concerning  the  possession  of  earthly  good  is  entirely 
lased  upon  the  Mosaic  doctrine  of  retrtbution.  What  this  expresses  as  the  shall  of 
promise  and  threatening,  is  announced  in  Proverbs  as  a  fact,  and  that  with  the 
assurance  arising  from  direct  expjerience.  Comp.  e.g.  xiii.  21  :  "  Evil  pursueth 
sinners  ;  but  to  the  righteous  good  shall  be  repaid  ;"  ver.  9  :  "  The  light  of  the 
righteous  rejoiceth  ;  but  the  lamp  of  the  wicked  is  put  out."  A  number  of  say- 
ings on  this  subject  are  found  in  the  speeches  of  the  three  friends  of  Job,  who 
explicitly  aim  to  exhibit  the  actual  reality  of  the  Divine  law  of  retribution.  The 
sum-total  of  earthly  good  is  life,  its  opposite  death  ;  and  these  are  often  contrast- 
ed with  each  other,  e.g.  Prov.  viii.  35  sq.,  where  Wisdom  says  :  "  Whoso  findeth 
me  findeth  life  :  ....  he  that  sinneth  against  me  wrongeth  his  own  soul  :  all 
they  that  hate  me  love  death."  Comp.  xi.  19,  also  xiii.  14  :  "The  teaching  of 
the  wise  is  a  fountain  of  life,  to  depart  from  the  snares  of  death."  That  the 
life,  which  is  the  reward  of  wisdom,  is  regarded  both  in  Proverbs  and  in  the 
legal  doctrine  of  retribution  as  earthly  and  of  this  world,  is  generally  admitted  ; 
the  question,  however,  is  whether  the  teaching  of  Proverhs  is  limited  thereto, 
Ewald,  in  particular,  asserts  the  contrary  ;  Proverbs,  in  his  opinion,  teaches  a 
happy  life  in  another  world.     Here  it  must  first  of  all  be  regarded  as  worthy  of 


§  243.]       MORAL  GOOD  :    ITS  llEALIZATION  IN  INDIVIDUAL  LIFE.  55l 

notice  that  the  rroverbs  make  mention  of  Sheol,  the  realm  of  shades  (D'><31), 
only  when  speaking  of  the  final  lot  of  the  wicked.  It  is  thither  that  the  paths  of 
the  adulteress  lead,  ii.  18,  v.  5,  vii.  27,  ix.  18  ;  while  not  a  word  is  said  of  the 
passing  of  the  pious  and  the  wise,  also,  into  Sheol.  Nay,  there  are  even  positive 
statements  which  appear  to  raise  the  wise  above  this  doom.  The  first  of  these 
passages  is  xii.  38  :  "  In  the  way  of  righteousness  is  life,  and  in  its  pathway  (^"^^ 
n^^n^)  is  non-death"  (ni.D-Ss,  that  is,  as  Ewald  and  Delitzsch  say,  immortality). 
We  should  indeed  have  expected  riJD  vh  (1).  Hitzig  and  Zockler,  on  the  con- 
trary, read  with  the  LXX  7K,  and  render  the  clause.  But  a  by-path  (?)  leads  to 
death  (2).  A  second  passage  is  xiv.  32:  "The  wicked  is  driven  away  in  his 
wickedness  ;  but  the  righteous  hath  hope  in  his  death"  (ir>ir33).  But  here  the 
LXX  have  another  reading,  their  text  probably  having  been  i'S'p?  ("  li^s  confi- 
dence in  his  innocence"),  which  would  hinder  the  passage  from  furnishing  any 
evidence  in  this  matter.  Another  is  xv.  24,  the  translation  of  which  is  certain  : 
"The  way  of  life  is  upward  to  the  wise,  to  escape  hell  beneath."  Also  when  it 
is  said,  xi.  7  :  "  When  a  wicked  man  dieth,  his  expectation  shall  perish  ;  and  the 
hope  of  the  unjust  perisheth,"  docs  it  not  seem  to  be  jiointed  out,  that  when  a 
just  man  dieth,  his  hope  does  not  perish,  which  is  indeed  interpolated  by  the 
LXX  as  the  first  clause  of  ver.  7  ?  (3).  According  to  the  Masoretic  text,  how- 
ever, the  contrast  is  found  in  ver.  8  :  "  The  righteous  is  delivered  out  of  trouble  ; 
and  the  wicked  cometh  in  his  stead."  The  circumstance,  however,  which  es- 
pecially makes  such  an  explanation  [of  these  passages]  doubtful  is,  that  in  these 
very  passages,  in  which  the  notion  of  life  as  the  reward  of  wisdom  is  so  clearly 
stated,  there  is  not  even  a  trace  of  an  allusion  to  a  future  and  better  life.  For 
instance  in  iii.  18,  wisdom  is  declared,  with  evident  reference  to  Gen.  ii.  9,  iii.  22, 
to  be  a  tree  of  life  ;  but  its  fruit  is  represented,  ver.  16  (see  below),  not  as  eternal 
life,  but  only  as  length  of  days  (Q'P^  1]^N)  ;  and  the  contrast  to  the  passage  Prov. 
ii.  18  sq.,  where  it  is  said  of  the  adulteress,  "Her  house inclineth  unto  death,  and 
her  paths  unto  the  dead  :  none  that  go  unto  her  .  .  .  take  hold  of  the  paths  of 
life"  (comp.  ver.  6),  is  only  (ver.  21)  "  the  upright  shall  dwell  in  the  land,  and 
the  perfect  shall  remain  in  it,"  while  the  wicked  are  to  be  rooted  out.  Compare 
also  X.  30  and  other  passages  (4).  Accordingly,  the  passages  xii.  28  and  xv.  24, 
even  if  the  Masoretic  punctuation  of  the  former  is  adopted,  only  refer  to  the  Di- 
vine promise  of  a  long  and  prosperous  earthly  life  ;  while  the  passage  xiv.  32&,  if 
the  Masoretic  text  is  accepted,  must  be  explained  either  of  the  trust  of  the  right- 
eous in  the  midst  even  of  extreme  peril,  or  of  such  a  confidence  on  the  part  of 
the  dying  righteous  man  in  the  future  prosperity  of  his  descendants,  as  Jacob 
manifested,  Gen.  xlix.  18,  or  in  the  honoring  of  his  memory  in  the  sense  of 
Prov.  x.  7  (5).  The  passages  brought  forward  by  Ewald  from  the  Proverbs  are 
of  the  same  kind  as  many  in  the  Psalms  which  were  referred  by  older  theologians 
to  life  eternal,  as  xxvii.  8  :  "To  see  the  goodness  of  the  Lord  in  the  land  of  the 
livino-  •"  cxlii.  5  :  "  Thou  art  my  refuge  and  my  portion  in  the  land  of  the  liv- 
ino-  "—which  explanation  has  been  long  considered  erroneous.  Upon  the 
whole  it  is  worthy  of  note  how  the  Book  of  Proverbs  draws,  so  to  speak,  a  veil 
over  the  state  of  the  righteous  in  Hades.  But  in  general,  it  is  certain,  as  already 
remarked,  that  wisdom  proffers  earthly  possessions  :  "Length  of  days  is  in  her 
right  hand,  and  in  her  left,  riches  and  honor." 


552  OLD  TESTAMENT   WISDOM.  [§  243. 

Hence  the  doctrine  of  the  Ilhokhma  has  often  been  designated  as  pure 
Eudemonism,  i.e.  as  teaching  that  wisdom  and  righteousness  are  but  means  for 
the  attainment  of  earthly  prosperity  as  the  proper  object  of  life.  The  state  of 
the  matter  is,  however,  as  follows.  As  even  the  legal  doctrine  of  retribution 
culminates,  according  to  Lev,  xxvi.  3  sqq.,  in  the  promise  of  the  dwelling  of  God 
among  His  people,  and  the  direct  intercourse  into  which  He  will  enter  with  them, 
and  as  consequently  there  can  be  from  the  Mosaic  standpoint  no  earthly  prosperity 
apart  from  communion  with  God  (see  §  89)  ;  so  also  does  wisdom,  in  virtue  of  its 
principle,  the  fear  of  God,  repudiate  all  earthly  aims  and  interests,  so  far  as 
these,  apart  from  the  Divine  ])urpose  and  pursued  for  their  own  sake,  constitute  the 
end  for  which  man  lives.  It  could  not,  in  fact,  be  more  distinctly  stated  than  it 
is  in  the  Book  of  Proverbs  that  it  is  culpable  to  make  earthly  prosperity,  in  and 
for  itself,  the  object  of  life.  Comp.  the  following  i^assages  on  riches  :  xi.  4, 
28,  XV.  16,  etc.  (6).  In  what  sense,  then,  is  it  that  earthly  possessions  are,  on 
the  other  hand,  represented  as  things  to  be  striven  after  ?  In  the  following  : 
that  while  it  would  be  folly  to  seek  them  for  their  own  sake,  it  is,  on  the  con- 
trary, wisdom  to  seek  them  as  a  good  consistent  with,  and  involved  in,  the 
Divine  purposes  ;  that  they  are  to  be  received  as  tokens  and  pledges  of  the  Dimne 
complacency,  as  a  blessing  which  God  has  combined  with  righteousness  as  its 
reward,  and  consequently  that  God  is  to  be  honored  by  them.  It  is  in  this  man- 
ner that  all,  even  the  seemingly  contradictory  passages  of  the  Proverbs,  are  to  be 
harmonized,  viz.  those  which  on  the  one  side  declare  wisdom  to  be  the  most 
desirable  of  all  possessions,  more  precious  than  pearls,  and  incomparably  surpass- 
ing all  that  can  be  desired  (iii.  15  comp.  with  xvi.  16,  etc.),  and  those  which,  on 
the  other  side,  extol  earthly  prosperity,  e.g.  praising  the  righteous  because  there 
is  much  treasure  in  his  house,  xv.  6,  etc.  The  beautiful  passage  xxx.  7-9  (7) 
may  especially  be  mentioned,  as  showing  how  earthly  prosperity  is  ever  to  be 
prized  only  in  proportion  as  it  is  accompanied  by  godly  and  righteous  conduct. 

(1)  [Delitzsch  on  xii.  28,  remarks  :  *'  If  we  compare  (with  this  passage)  xiv.  325., 
it  is  clear  that  the  Hhokhma  begins  to  break  through  the  limits  of  time  and 
the  world,  which  confined  the  knowledge  of  salvation  to  the  present,  and  to 
announce  a  life  which  strips  death  of  its  power.] 

(2)  Vulg. :  iter  autem  devium  ducit  ad  mortem  ;  in  corroboration  of  which,  Judg. 
V.  6,  where  rn^'fl^,  as  contrasted  with  i^iTiX,  means  hy-ways,  and  Jer.  xviii.  15, 
where  n7l7p  X;  '^j'^'n  corresponds  with  ni^'H^,  may  certainly  be  appealed  to.  But 
the  word  signifies  simply  a  narrow  footpath  ;  hence  it  is  questionable  whether  it 
ought  to  be  taken  in  so  pregnant  a  sense. 

(3)  Prov.  xi.  la,  LXX  :  re'kfVTijaavTog  avSpoQ  SiKalov  ova  62.XvTai  eXttIc.  Zockler, 
too,  finds  this  meaning  in  the  passage. 

(4)  Prov.  X.  30  :  "  The  righteous  shall  never  be  removed  ;  but  the  wicked  shall 
not  inhabit  the  land"  (comp.  ver.  25)  ;  ver.  27  :  "  The  fear  of  the  Lord  prolongeth 
days  ;  but  the  years  of  the  wicked  shall  be  shortened." 

(5)  Prov.  X.  7:  "The  memory  of  the  just  is  blessed  ;  but  the  name  of  the 
wicked  shall  rot." 

(9)  Prov.  xi.  4:  "Riches  profit  not  in  the  day  of  wrath;  but  righteousness 
delivereth  from  death  ;"  ver.  28  :  "  He  that  trusteth  in  his  riches  shall  fall  ;  but 
the  righteous  shall  flourish  as  a  branch  ;"  xv.  16  :  "  Better  is  little  with  the  fear 
of  the  Lord,  than  great  treasure  and  trouble  therewith."  It  is  easy  to  find  many 
more  proverbs  of  this  kind. 


§244.]     REALIZATION  OF  MORAL  GOOD  IN  SOCIAL  SPHERES,  ETC.  653 

(7)  Proy.  XXX.  7-9  :  "  Two  things  have  I  required  of  Thee,  deny  mo  them  not 
before  I  die  :  Remove  far  from  me  vanity  and  lies  ;  give  me  neitlier  poverty  nor 
riches  ;  feed  me  with  food  convenient  for  me  :  lest  I  he  full,  and  deny  Thee,  and 
say,  Who  is  the  Lord  ?  or  lest  I  be  poor,  and  steal,  and  take  the  name  of  my  God 
in  vain."  •' 


§244. 

Bealization  of  Moral  Oood  in  the  Various  Social  Spheres.     The  View  taken  in  Proverbs 

of  Mil  and  Pain. 

Moral  good  is  not  realized  in  individual  life  alone,  but  also  in  the  various  social 
spheres.  And  here  it  is  first  of  all  the  sphere  of  the  family,  of  domestic  life,  that 
claims  our  consideration,  domestic  happiness  being  the  chief  of  those  good  things 
with  which  the  fear  of  God  is  rewarded.  Both  the  co?^jiigal  and  the  parental  rclii- 
tions  are  regarded  by  the  Hhokhma  with  a  moral  and  religious  seriousness,  the  like 
of  which  is  not  found  in  any  one  of  the  nations  of  antiquity.  Marriage  is  desig- 
nated, Prov.  ii.  17,  as  a  covenant  of  Ood  (1).  "House  and  riches  are  the  inheri- 
tance of  fathers  ;  but  a  prudent  wife  is  from  the  Lord,"  xix.  14  (2)  ;  comp.  also 
xii.  4,  xviii.  22  (3).  The  description  of  such  a  wife,  xxxi.  10  sqq.,  terminates,  ver. 
30,  with  the  words,  "Favor  is  deceitful,  and  beauty  is  vain  ;  but  a  woman  that 
feareth  the  Lord  she  shall  be  praised."  No  sin  is  more  frequently  or  more  sharply 
reproved  in  Proverbs  than  the  violation  of  conjugal  fidelity;  see  ii.  12  sqq.,  ch. 
v.,  vi.  23  sqq.,  and  the  entire  seventh  chapter.  Solomon'' s  Song  may  also  be  referred 
to  ;  for  even  if  it  is  not  regarded  as  a  satire  on  polygamy,  it  very  decidedly  views 
conjugal  love  as  a  unique  relation  when  compared  with  the  polygamy  which  it 
presupposes,  vi.  9,  and  speaks,  viii.  C,  of  a  love  strong  as  death,  whose  jealousy 
is  as  hard  as  the  grave,  whose  coals  are  coals  of  fire,  a  flame  of  the  Lord.  With 
this  corresponds  the  appreciation  of  the  Messing  of  children.  Descendants  are  in- 
deed the  glory  of  a  house  (4),  but  only,  as  is  frequently  stated,  when  children  are 
wise  and  walk  in  the  fear  of  God  ;  see  Prov.  x.  1,  xvii.  21,  xxiii.  24,  xxvii.  11, 
etc.  (5).  Hence  it  is  expressly  required  that  children  be  carefully  trained,  by 
strict  discipline  and  religious  and  moral  instruction  (6). 

Not  only  domestic  but  political  life,  and  well-ordered  civil  institutions,  are  re- 
garded as  component  parts  of  moral  good.  All  earthly  authority  is,  as  already 
remarked  (§  239),  an  emanation  of  the  Divine  wisdom.  The  view  that  kings  and 
judges  are  the  organs  of  the  Divine  government  of  the  world,  and  vicegerents  of 
the  Supreme  Ruler  and  .Judge,  and  that  as  such  they  are  appointed  to  administer 
justice,  especiallyby  executing  severe  judgment  upon  the  wicked,  forms  the  foun- 
dation of  a  whole  series  of  proverbs  ;  comp.  xvi.  12-15,  xx.  8,  26,  xxv.  5,  xxix. 
4  (7).  For  "where  there  is  no  guidance  (ni73nn),  a  nation  falls,"  xi.  14.  The 
prosperity  of  a  nation,  however,  depends  upon  its  possession  of  the  word  of  God, 
of  the  law  and  prophecy.  "  Where  there  is  no  prophecy,  the  people  perish  ;  but 
he  that  keepeth  the  law,  happy  is  he,"  xxix.  18  (8).  All  political  wisdom  is  com- 
prised in  the  saying  :  "Righteousness  exalteth  a  nation  ;  but  sin  is  a  reproof  to 
any  people,"  xiv.  34.  In  xxviii.  12,  15  sq.,  we  are  told  how  a  blessing  or  a  curse 
falls  upon  a  people,  according  to  the  character  of  its  government.  Hence  numer- 
ous good  counsels  are  given  to  kings,  e.g.  xxix.  12,  14  :   "  If  a  ruler  hearken  unto 


554  OLD   TESTAMENT   WISDOM.  [§  244. 

lies,  all  his  servants  are  wicked.     The  king  that  faithfully  judgeth  the  poor,  his 
throne  shall  be  established  for  ever."     Comp.  also  xxxi.  1-9,  etc. 

When  every  department  of  life  thus  combines  to  subserve  the  Divine  purpose, 
the  Israelitish  mind  feels  satisfied.  That  there  is  so  much  evil  in  the  world,  is 
indeed  a  thought  which  disturbs  it  when  contemplating  the  beauty  and  order  of 
the  universe,  comp.  Ps.  civ.  35  (§  53)  ;  but  evil  being  regarded  in  its  connection 
with  that  Divine  judgment  that  awaits  it  and  manifests  the  justice  and  holiness 
of  God,  becomes  itself  an  element  of  the  Divine  teleology  :  "  The  Lord  hath  made 
all  things  for  Himself,  yea,  even  the  wicked  for  the  day  of  evil,"  Prov.  xvi.  4. 
Those  irregularities  which  do  not  harmonize  with  the  Mosaic  doctrine  of  retribu- 
tion, are  reconciled  by  their  connection  w^ith  the  whole  ;  the  suffering,  from  which 
the  wise  and  righteous  is  not  exemj^t,  working  as  a  means  of  Divine  discipline  for 
his  good.  The  proverb  iii.  11  sq.  says:  "My  son,  despise  not  the  chastening 
of  the  Lord,  neither  be  w^eary  of  His  correction  ;  for  wiiom  the  Lord  loveth  He 
correcteth,  even  as  a  father  the  son  in  whom  he  delighteth"  (9).  There  is  no 
trace  here  of  th-at  heart-agitating  conflict  depicted  in  the  Book  of  Job.  This  is 
not  to  say  that  the  contradictions  which  Old  Testament  life  bears  within  itself 
are  reconciled.  To  the  finite,  value  is  attached  so  far  as  it  is  incorporated  into 
the  Divine  order  of  things  :  but  in  its  finiteness  it  is  not  wholly  and  altogether 
decried.  As  the  possession  of  the  wise,  it  is  placed  in  a  different  point  of  view 
from  that  from  which  the  fool  and  the  ungodly  contemplate  it ;  but  it  does  not  reach 
the  realization  of  man's  eternal  destiny.  Of  this  eternal  destiny  the  Hhokhma 
of  the  Proverbs  is  not  able  to  speak,  at  least  with  clearness  (10),  and  does  but 
draw  a  veil  over  death  and  Sheol.  To  the  Old  Testament  wisdom,  however,  it 
was  assigned  to  uncover  these  unreconciled  contradictions,  and  to  fight  out  such 
a  mental  conflict  as  has  been  fought  out  by  the  wisdom  of  no  other  nation.  How 
this  struggle  arose  will  next  demand  our  attention. 

(1)  I.e.,  as  a  covenant  entered  into  before  God  and  with  His  intervention. 
Thus  Hitzig  aptly  quotes  by  way  of  illustrating  the  saying  of  Jonathan,  1  Sam. 
XX.  23  :  "  And  as  touching  the  matter  which  thou  and  I  have  spoken  of,  behold, 
the  Lord  be  between  thee  and  me  for  ever."  Comp.  Mai.  ii.  14  (§102).  That 
marriages,  as  Ewald  m  loc.  thinks,  were  not  concluded  without  the  sacred  rites 
of  the  public  religion,  cannot  be  proved  from  the  Old  Testament. 

(2)  I.e.,  as  Hitzig  again  well  and  briefly  remarks,  marriages  are  made  in 
heaven. 

(3)  According  to  Prov.  xviii.  22,  to  have  found  a  good  wife  is  a  token  of  the 
Divine  favor. 

(4)  Comp.  Prov.  xvii.  6  :   "  Children's  children  are  the  crown  of  old  men." 

(5)  Prov.  X.  1  :  "A  wise  son  maketh  a  glad  father  ;  but  a  foolish  son  is  the 
heaviness  of  his  mother;"  xvii.  21  :  "He  that  begetteth  a  fool,  doeth  it  to  his 
sorrow  ;  and  the  father  of  a  fool  hath  no  joy  ;"  xxiii.  24  :  "The  father  of  the 
righteous  shall  greatly  rejoice,  and  he  that  begetteth  a  wise  child  shall  have  joy 
of  him  ;"  xxvii.  11  :  "My  son,  be  wise,  and  make  my  heart  glad,  that  I  may 
answer  him  that  reproacheth  me  ;"  in  other  words,  well  brought  up  children  are 
the  best  vindication  of  a  father  against  the  attacks  of  slanderers.  Comp.  also 
xxviii.  7,  xxix.  3. 

(G)  The  standing  model  for  the  education  of  cldldrcn  is  tlie  method  adopted  by 
the  Divine  wisdom  (see  §  239).  This  is  divided  into  two  parts, — dii<cipUne,  taking 
the  word  in  its  narrower  sense,  and  instruction,  on  which  account  it  is  required 
of  the  teacher  that  he  should  himself  apply  his  heart  to  discipline,  and  his  eare 


§  244.]      REALIZATION  OF  3I0UAL  GOOD  IN  SOCIAL  SPHERES,  ETC.  555 

to  the  words  of  knowledge,  Prov.  xxiii.  12.  For  tliis  saying  forms  the  introduc- 
tion to  vers.  13-lG  ;  and  Oetinger  correctly  states  tlic  connection  to  be,  "  As  thou 
bringest  up  thyself,  so  wilt  thou  also  l)ring  up  tiiy  children."  Above  all  the 
natural  evil  inclination  of  the  child,  "the  foolishness  which  is  bound  in  the  heart 
of  a  child"  (xxii.  15),  is  to  be  restrained  by  strict  diarijiliiie.  "The  rod  and  re- 
proof give  wisdom  ;  but  a  child  left  to  himself  bringeth  his  mother  to  shame" 
(xxix.  15).  Stripes,  which  are  spoken  of  as  a  fit  means  for  encountering  folly  and 
wickedness  in  general  (x.  13,  xx.  30),  are  repeatedly  demanded  for  the  chastise- 
ment of  children.  He  who  spares  the  rod  is  said  to  hate  the  cliild  ;  while  true 
love  for  it  is  manifested  by  strict  discipline,  because  the  child  is  thereby  saved 
from  ruin,  xiii.  24,  xxiii.  13  sq.  "  Correct  thy  son,  and  lie  shall  give  thee  rest ; 
yea,  he  shall  give  delight  unto  thy  soul  "  (xxix.  17).  A  distinction  is,  however, 
made  between  the  case  in  which  verbal  reproof  and  that  in  which  corporal  chastise- 
ment is  required  :  "A  reproof  entereth  more  into  a  wise  man  than  an  liundred 
stripes  into  a  fool  "  (xvii.  10)  ;  "Smite  a  scorner,  and  the  simple  will  beware  ; 
and  reprove  one  that  hath  understanding,  and  he  will  understand  knowledge" 
(xix.  25).  The  knowledge,  then,  for  the  reception  of  which  discipline  is  to  open 
the  understanding,  is  of  a  religious  and  moral  nature  ;  and  the  instrnction  spoken 
of  in  the  Proverbs  is  designed  to  lead  to  the  knowledge  and  fear  of  God,  wlience 
proceeds  the  understanding  of  righteousness,  judgment,  and  equity,  and  every 
good  path  (comp.  as  chief  passage,  ii.  1-9).  The  young  are  to  be  instructed  in 
the  Divine  word.  It  is  not  as  written  that  the  word  of  God  is  made  by  Proverbs 
to  be  authoritative  ;  it  comes  rather  to  a  son  from  the  vunith  of  liis  parents.  The 
commands  of  parents  have  the  authority  of  the  Divine  law  ;  and  the  promises 
made  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  Divine  commandments  depend  upon  their  observance. 
Comp.  i.  8,  "My  son,  hear  the  instruction  of  thy  father,  and  forsake  not  the  law 
of  thy  mother,"  where  the  combination  of  reverence  for  parents  with  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  fear  of  God  expressed  ver.  7  should  be  noted.  Also  iv.  3  sq.  :  "I 
was  my  father^s  son,  tender  and  only  l)eloved  in  the  sight  of  my  mother"  {i.e. 
the  true  relation  which  ought  to  exist  between  parents  and  children  was  found 
in  me).  "  He  taught  me  also,  and  said  unto  me,  Let  thy  heart  retain  my  words  ; 
keep  my  commandments,  and  live."  Comp.  also  vi.  20  sqq.,  where  it  should  be 
remarked  that  the  law  of  the  mother  is  placed  side  by  side  with  the  command- 
ment of  the  father,  and  a  share  in  the  moral  and  religious  training  of  the  son 
is  thus  assigned  to  the  former.  In  this  passage,  what  was  said  in  Deut.  vi.  7 
(§  105)  of  the  keeping  of  the  Divine  law  is  transferred  to  parental  instruc- 
tion. "Bind  them  continually  upon  thine  heart,  and  tie  them  about  thy  neck. 
When  thou  goest,  it  shall  lead  thee  ;  when  thou  sleepest,  it  shall  keep  thee  ;  and 
when  thou  awakest,  it  shall  talk  with  thee"  (or  perhaps  more  correctly,  "make 
thee  reflect,"  i.e.  it  shall  be  thy  first  thought  in  the  morning).  Disobedience  to 
parents  entails  heavy  judgments,  the  doom  of  the  transgressor  awaiting  him  who 
despises  them  (xxx.  17,  comp.  xx.  20).  Parents  are  also  warned  to  begin  the  in- 
struction of  their  children  betimes,  and  thus  to  train  them  for  their  whole  life  : 
"Train  up  a  child  in  the  way  he  should  go,  and  when  he  is  old  he  will  not  de- 
part from  it."  Special  regard  is  to  be  had  to  the  doings  of  a  child,  since  by 
them  it  may  be  perceived  "  whether  his  nature  be  pure,  and  whether  it  be  right" 
(xx.  11).  In  such  subjection  of  youth  to  a  sacred  authority,  that  strict  discipline 
of  law  by  which  God  trains  His  people  is  repeated  :  "  It  is  good  for  a  man  that 
he  bear  the  yoke  in  his  youth"  (Lam.  iii.  27).  A  complete  statement  of  the  ed- 
ucational precepts  given  in  the  Proverbs  would  here  be  out  of  ])lace.  It  may 
sufiice  to  point  out,  in  addition  to  what  has  already  been  said,  how  earnestly 
diligence  is  insisted  on,  and  sloth  branded  as  a  contemptible  thing  (vi.  6-11,  x.  26, 
XV.  19,  xix.  15,  24,  xx.  4,  13,  xxvi.  13-10)  ;  how  temjyerance  (xiii.  25,  xxiii.  19-21) 
and  chastity  are  required,  and  temptations  to  unchastity  warned  against  (vii.  5 
sqq.,  xxiii.  26-28).  On  the  position  taken  by  Old  Testament  teaching  with  re- 
spect to  bodily  exercise,  see  the  article  "Padagogik  d.  A.  T."  in  Schmid's  Fada- 
gogiscMr  EncyMop.  v.  p.  683.  The  education  of  girh  is  never  separately  treated  of 
in  Proverbs.     It  is  a  self-evident  assumption  that  they  too  were  instructed  in  the 


556  OLD  TESTAMENT  WISDOM.  [§  245. 

law,  though  this  is  first  expressly  stated  in  the  apocryphal  Book  of  Susannah,  ver. 
3.  The  end  contemplated  in  female  education  may  be  perceived  from  the  de- 
scription of  the  excellent  woman  in  Prov.  xxxi.  10  sqq.,  and  the  passnges  xi.  16, 
22,  xii.  4,  etc.  Modesty  and  moral  tact  (D>!.tO,  xi.  33;  Hitzig :  "An  acute 
sense  of  decorum,  chiefly  manifested  in  modesty  of  siDcech,  look,  and  conduct") 
are  the  ornaments  of  woman.  Isa.  iii.  16  sqq.  is  an  earnest  reproof  of  the  daugh- 
ters of  Zion  for  their  pride,  luxury,  and  love  of  dress.  Constant  occupation,  in- 
dustry, benevolence,  and  liberality  are  the  chief  features  of  the  description  Prov, 
xxxi.,  which  also  shows  that  skill  in  handiwork  of  all  kinds  was  then  a  part  of 
female  education.  But  here  also  the  instruction  of  wisdom  is  true  to  its  princi- 
ple, ver.  30  (see  above).  For  the  literature  of  Old  Testament  education,  see  the 
article  cited,  p.  653  sq. 

(7)  Comp.  Stier,  who  has  written  separate  works  on  two  sections  of  the  Proverbs, 
one  on  ch.  xxv.  sqq.,  with  the  title,  Der  Weise  ein  Koiiig,  the  other  on  ch.  xxx. 
sq.,  entitled  Die  PoUtih  der  Weisheit. 

(8)  In  tliese  passages  each  member  must  be  completed  by  the  other. 

(9)  The  prosperity  of  the  age  of  Solomon  is  reflected  in  the  peace  and  quiet  shed 
over  the  life  of  the  wise. 

(10)  This  conclusion  must  be  arrived  at  even  according  to  the  most  favorable 
explanation  of  the  passages  discussed. 


POmiTH   SECTION. 
THE   ENIGMAS   OP   HUMAN   LIFE.       THE   STRUGGLE   FOR   THEIR   SOLUTION    (1). 

§  245. 

The  Enigmas  themselves. 

That  which  above  all  else  gave  rise  to  the  struggle  between  faith  and  doubt,  was 
the  perception  that  the  actual  course  of  events  did  not  harmonize  with  the  postti- 
lates  of  the  doctrine  of  retribution, — that  the  God  who  judges  righteously  did  not 
make  His  righteous  judgment  evident  in  what  befell  either  nations  or  individuals. 
The  Israelitish  mind  was  the  less  able  to  turn  to  fatalistic  consolations,  because  in 
its  view  the  reality  of  the  idea  of  God  coincided  with  the  reality  of  the  ordinance 
of  retribution,  and  the  denial  of  the  latter  would  result  in  atheism.  It  was  indeed 
the  very  characteristic  of  the  wicked,  that  while  he  said  in  his  pride,  "  God  will 
not  requite  it,"  he  really  meant,  "There  is  no  God  ;"  comp.  passages  such  as  Ps. 
X.  4  sq.,  xiv.  1.  It  is  on  this  account  that  Job  is  so  often  reproached  by  his  friends 
for  resembling  the  wicked  (D^J^K?*!)  by  disputing  the  Divine  retribution.  If  on 
this  account  those  who  suffer  are  first  of  all  required  to  seek  for  the  reason  of  their 
sufferings  in  their  sins.  Lam.  iii.  39  sq.  (3),  the  tuition  of  the  law,  on  the  other 
hand,  not  only  arouses  an  accusing,  but  produces  a  good  conscience,  which  the 
man  who  walks  in  God's  ways,  and  is  therefore  unable  to  acknowledge  that  his 
suffering  is  the  punishment  of  his  sin,  is  conscious  that  he  may  venture  to  assert  ; 
comp.  Ps.  xvii.  1  sqq.,  xviii.  31  sqq.,  Job  xxxi.,  and  other  passages.  Even  in  the 
theocratic  covenant,  God  approaches  man  as  a  free  being,  as  one  who  has  not  only 
obligations,  but  rights.  Hence  no  self-condemnation,  contrary  to  his  own  con- 
science, is  demanded.  "When  Job  declines  such  self-condemnation  as  was  pressed 
upon  him,  when  he  says,  eg.,  xxvii.  5  sq.,  "  I  will  not  let  my  integrity  be  taken 


§  345.]  THE  ENIGMAS  OF  HUMAN   LIFE.  557 

from  me  ;  my  righteousness  I  liold  fast,  and  will  not  let  it  go  ;  my  lieart  does  not 
reproach  one  of  my  days,"  his  words  testify  tiiat  his  conviction  of  sin  was  not  as 
yet  as  deep  as  it  should  be.  But  still  his  very  sincerity  in  not  having  recourse  to 
falsehood  in  majorem  Dei  gloriam  is  expressly  approved,  xlii.  7.  Severely  as  the 
Old  Testament  rebukes  murmuring  unbelief,  and  little  as  it  concedes  to  man, 
regarded  in  his  natural  worthlessness,  any  claim  upon  God  (3),  it  still  furnishes, 
within  the  institution  of  the  covenant,  ground  upon  which  suffering  innocence  and 
piety  may,  when  the  wicked  prosper,  venture  to  expostulate  with  God,  such 
expostulation  being  indeed  the  result  of  faith  in  the  covenant  God  and  in  the  truth 
of  His  promises.  Accordingly,  in  times  of  conflict  and  distress,  we  find  in  the 
Old  Testament  the  language  of  expostulation  with  the  just  God  in  the  mouth  of  His 
servants,  and  so  often  meet  with  that  frequently  recurring  why?  "Why  standest 
Thou  afar  off,  O  Lord  ?  why  hidest  Thou  Thyself  in  times  of  trouble  ?"  Ps.  x.  1. 
"Why  does  the  wicked  contemn  God?  ver.  13.  "How  long  wilt  Thou  look 
on?"  XXXV.  17.  Comp.  also  the  complaint  of  the  influence  of  the  wicked  in  the 
Psalms  in  general,  Ps.  xii.,  xiv.,  and  others.  Similar  complaints  of  the  supremacy 
of  evil  and  the  delay  of  Divine  retribution  are  found  also  in  the  prophets,  comp. 
Hab.  i.,  Jer.  xii.  15,  18,  etc.  But  while  the  perplexities  caused  by  the  fortunes 
of  nations  were  solved  for  the  prophets  by  the  view  afforded  them  of  the  consum- 
mation of  the  Divine  kingdom,  of  the  day  of  the  Lord  when  judgment  and  deliv- 
erance should  manifest  the  Divine  righteousness,  it  was  concerning  the  enigmas  of 
individual  life,  presented  by  the  prosperity  of  the  wicked  and  the  calamities  of 
the  godly,  that  the  reflecting  mind  of  the  Old  Testament  sagos  struggled  to  obtain 
light.  Several  of  the  Psalms  dwell  on  this  matter,  wiiich  is  the  special  subject  of 
the  whole  Book  of  Job.  The  consideration,  however,  of  the  contradiction  so  often 
existing  between  the  moral  worth  of  a  man  and  his  lot  in  life,  leads  at  once  to  the 
discovery  of  another  enigma.  If  there  were  a  retribution  after  death,  a  solution 
of  the  contradiction  in  which  the  lot  of  man  often  appears  to  stand  to  the  justice 
of  God  might  be  expected  in  another  world.  But  as  we  have  seen  in  Part  I.,  are 
not  all  alike  in  death  and  in  the  regions  of  the  dead?  And  then,  further,  how 
does  the  sad  doom  of  Sheol  agree  with  the  Divine  destination  of  man  ?  (4j.  Sup- 
pose even  that  a  just  man  were  to  prosper  during  his  whole  life,  what  would  this 
profit  him,  when  he  descends  to  the,  realm  of  shades?  The  lamentation  over 
the  perishableness  of  man,  over  death  and  the  grave,  found  in  many  of  the  Psalms, 
and  in  chh.  vii.  and  xiv.  of  the  Book  of  Job,  has  quite  a  different  meaning  from 
that  met  with  in  heathen  writers,  because  the  Old  Testament  did  not  view  the 
mortality  of  man  as  a  natural  necessity,  but  connected  it  with  sin  and  tiie  wrath  of 
God,  Ps.  xc.  7-9  (see  Pt.  I.  §  77),  and  because  the  communion  instituted  by  rev- 
elation between  the  living  God  and  man  imparts  to  human  personality  an  eternal 
importance.  This,  indeed,  at  first  manifests  itself  only  in  the  assurance  of  the 
continued  duration  of  the  chosen  race,  but,  in  proportion  as  the  personal  experience 
of  communion  with  God  deepens,  it  awakens  in  the  individual  also,  the  feeling  of 
an  imperishable  destiny.  Hence,  in  place  of  that  satisfaction  with  which  we  see 
the  patriarchs  depart  from  a  life  filled  with  God's  goodness,  and  gathered  to  their 
fathers  in  the  joyful  prospect  of  the  blessings  promised  to  their  descendants,  in 
place  of  the  praise  of  that  grace  of  God  which  had  bestowed  so  large  a  share 
of  its  "-ifts  during  the  fleeting  life  of  man,  Ps.  ciii,  15-18,  we  find  in  hours  of 


558  OLD   TESTAMENT   WISDOM.  [§  246. 

temptation,  dismay  at  the  fact  that  communion  with  God  (the  seeing  of  the  Lord, 
Isa.  xxxviii.  11)  must  cease  in  death.  Nay,  it  seems  incomprehensible  that  God, 
who  desires  to  be  loved  and  praised  by  His  people,  should  Himself  dissolve  the  tie 
■which  He  has  made  with  man  ;  comp.  Ps.  xxx.  9,  Ixxxviii.  12  sq.,  and  other 
passages  (5).  This  fear  of  death  among  the  Old  Testament  saints  is  an  infinitely 
more  exalted  feeling  than  the  contempt  of  death  found  among  the  heathen  ;  for 
death,  as  Luther  says  in  his  exposition  of  Ps.  xc,  is  not  to  be  conquered  by  con- 
tempt, as  serfs  and  rogues  suppose. 

(1)  Comp.  my  article,  "Immortality,  Doctrine  of  the  Old  Testament  on,"  in 
Herzog's  Real-EticyUop.  xxi.  p.  419  sqq.  [Also  some  good  remarks  in  Bestmann, 
Gesch.  d.  chr.  Sitte,  i.  332.] 

(2)  Lam.  iii.  39  sq.  :  "Wherefore  doth  a  living  man  complain,  a  man  for  the 
punishment  of  his  sins  ?  Let  us  search  and  try  our  ways,  and  turn  again  unto 
the  Lord." 

(3)  For  how  should  the  clay  strive  with  the  potter,  a  potsherd  among  potsherds  ! 
Isa.  xxix.  16,  xlv.  9-11,  and  elsewhere. 

(4)  That  the  ancient  doctrine  of  Sheol  is  found  also  in  the  Psalms  and  in  the 
writings  of  the  Hhokhma,  has  been  shown,  §  78  sq. 

(5)  Ps.  xxx.  9  :  "  What  profit  is  there  in  my  blood,  when  I  go  down  to  the  pit  ? 
Shall  the  dust  praise  Thee  ?  or  shall  it  declare  Thy  truth  ?"  Ih.  Ixxxviii.  11  sq.  : 
"Shall  Thy  loving  kindness  be  declared  in  the  grave?  or  Thy  faithfulness  in 
destruction  ?  Shall  Thy  wonders  be  known  in  the  dark  ?  and  Thy  righteousness 
in  the  land  of  forgetfulness  ?"     Comp.  vi.  6. 

§  246. 

The  Struggle  to  solve  the  Enigmas  relating  to  this  Subject  in  the  Psalms. 

In  those  Psalms  which  relate  to  the  contradiction  existing  ietioeen  the  moral  wprth 
of  an  individual  and  his  external  circumstances,  we  generally  find  that  the  knot  is 
not  untied,  but  simply  cut.  The  righteous  man  who  seems  about  to  perish  must 
nevertheless  be  delivered,  or  Jehovah  would  not  be  Jehovah  ;  therefore  "  for  His 
name's  sake"  the  wicked  who  think  themselves  so  secure  must  perish,  as  surely 
as  a  righteous  God  exists.  When  prevailing  with  God  in  prayer,  the  Psalmist 
surmounts  every  hindrance  which  opposes  the  realization  of  his  confidence  ;  comp. 
the  supplicatory  Psalms  iii.,  iv.,  v.,  vii.,  ix.,  and  a  whole  series  of  similar  ones. 
Another  .special  feature  is  to  be  remarked  in  those  Psalms  in  which  that  judg- 
ment upon  his  enemies  which  the  Psalmist  confidently  entreats  is  also  in  a  measure 
announced — the  so-called  imqyrecatory  Psalms,  of  which  Ps.  lix.,  Ixix. ,  and  cix.  are 
the  strongest.  Instead  of  being  shocked  at  them,  we  need  simply  to  understand 
them.  And  it  is  easy  to  perceive  that  what  we  find  in  them  is  no  private  feeling 
of  anger  venting  itself  in  curses,  but  that  they  are  the  product  of  zeal  for  the 
honor  of  that  God  who  is  attacked  in  His  servants  ;  comp.  especially  Ixix.  10  (1). 
Such  Psalms  are  just  the  expression  of  the  sentiment,  cxxxix.  21  sq.  :  "Do  not  I 
hate  them,  O  Lord,  that  hate  Thee  ?  and  am  not  I  grieved  with  them  that  rise  up 
against  TJiee  ?  I  hate  them  with  perfect  hatred  :  I  count  tliem  mine  enemies." 
The  fact,  however,  that  there  is,  in  the  manner  and  degree  in  which  the  assump- 
tion of  Divine  retribution  upon  the  wicked  is  expressed,  a  severity  which  casts 
the  love  that  would  seek  and  save  the  lost  into  the  background,  must  certainly 


§  246.]  STKUGGLE   TO   SOLVE   ENIGMAS   IN   THE    PSALMS.  559 

be  in  general  explained  by  tlie  difference  between  tlic  standpoint  of  the  kw  and 
of  the  gospel, — a  difference  pointed  out  by  our  Lord  to  His  disciples  when  rebuk- 
ing them  for  manifesting  the  zeal  of  Elijah,  Luke  ix.  55.  But  another  and  ofton- 
overlooked  point  must  be  here  considered.  Tlie  New  Testament  itself  knows  of 
no  other  final  reconciliation  of  the  contradiction  introduced  into  the  world  by  the 
existence  of  evil  than  that  which  is  accomplished  by  judgment.  But  the  differ- 
ence between  the  two  Testaments  lies  in  the  circumstance  that  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, referring,  as  far  as  retribution  is  concerned,  exclusively  to  this  life,  docs 
not  afford  the  same  scope  for  the  Divine  long-suffering  as  the  New,  and  must 
demand  an  actual  and  adequate  sentence,  an  infliction  of  judgment  upon  the 
ungodly  within  the  limits  of  this  earthly  existence.  What,  now,  if  the  very  pos- 
tulate of  faith  seems  again  and  again  falsified  by  experience, — if,  as  Ps.  Ixxiii.  IS 
says,  to  cleanse  the  heart  and  life  seems  to  be  in  vain,  while  the  prosperity  of 
audacious  transgressors  appears  secure  ?  The  solution  furnished  by  certain  Psalms 
is  not  a  dogmatic  one,  i.e.  no  doctrine  actually  leading  beyond  the  limits  of 
Mosaism  is  arrived  at.  It  is  rather  a  solution  which  is  subjective  and  personal. 
The  communion  wuth  God  to  which  the  Psalmist  has  been  admitted  asserts  itself 
with  such  strength,  that  he  not  only  finds  therein  his  full  compensation  for  the 
prosperity  of  the  wicked,  but,  rising  for  the  moment  superior  to  death  and  Sheol, 
knows  himself  to  be  inseparably  united  to  God.  The  transition  to  such  passages 
is  formed  by  Ps.  iv.  8,  where  David,  in  such  hopeless  circumstances  as  made 
many  of  his  followers  despair,  esteems  the  joy  which  he  has  in  God  beyond  the 
superfluity  in  which  his  enemies  revel.  But  the  first  chief  passage  in  which  the 
feeling  of  saving  and  indissoluble  union  with  God  is  poured  forth  is  Ps.  xvi. 
Because  the  Lord  is  his  supreme  good,  and  always  with  him,  the  Psalmist  is  also 
able  to  say,  ver.  10  sq.  :  "Thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  to  Sheol,  nor  suffer  Thy 
holy  one  to  see  corruption.  Thou  wilt  show  me  the  path  of  life.  In  Thy 
presence  is  fulness  of  joy;  and  at  Thy  right  hand  pleasures  for  evermore."  It 
would  (as  even  Hupfeld  frankly  admits)  empty  these  words  of  their  meaning  to 
see  in  them  only  a  confidence  of  deliverance  from  mortal  peril.  To  this  feeling, 
however,  we  must  certainly  refer  such  passages  as  xlviii.  14  and  Ixviii.  20,  which 
some  {e.g.  Stier)  have  also  interpreted  of  deliverance  from  death  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment sense  (2).  The  case  of  Ps.  xvi.  is  rather  as  follow^s  :  The  idea  that  the 
righteous  must  at  last  succumb  to  death  and  Sheol,  and  that  their  happiness  in 
God  is  to  be  thereby  terminated,  is  at  such  moments  an  impossible  one  to  the 
Psalmist.  Hence  he  gives  utterance  to  a  presentiment  which  reaches  beyond  the 
limits  of  the  ancient  covenant.  The  words,  "I  shall  behold  Thy  face  in  right- 
eousness;  I  shall  be  satisfied,  when  I  awake,  with  Thy  likeness,"  xvii.  15,  if 
they  refer,  according  to  the  view  still  defended  by  many  moderns  (De  Wette, 
Delitzsch),  to  an  awaking  from  the  sleep  of  death,  whether  to  a  heavenly  life 
or  to  resurrection,  would  go  still  further.  But  the  meaning  of  the  passage  is  (?,) 
only  that  the  Psalmist  is  magnifying  that  higher  happiness  which  he,  as  a  godly 
man  enjoys  in  beholding  God,  and  on  which  is  founded  his  assurance  that  his 
prayer  will  be  heard,  in  comparison  with  that  contemptuously  described  pros- 
perity with  which  God  fills  the  ungodly  (4).  The  heholding  God's  face  and  being 
satisfied  with  His  likeness  do  not  go  beyond  the  expressions  used  Ixiii.  3,  and  are 
simply  tl)P  strongest  terms  for  denoting  the  consciousness  of  God's  gracious 


560  OLD   TESTAMENT    WISDOM.  [§  246. 

presence.  The  passage  is  akin  to  Ps.  iv.  8  sq.  ;  and  a  comparison  with  the  latter 
leads  to  the  supposition  that  Ps.  xvii.  may  be  an  evening  or  night  prayer,  and 
that  the  awaking  in  ver.  15  may  refer  to  awaking  from  natural  sleep.  But  even 
if  the  passage  does  not  treat  of  a  happy  life  after  death,  it  is  still,  as  Hupfeld 
justly  remarks,  an  important  one,  on  account  of  its  wonderfully  profound  con- 
ception of  the  world,  and  of  life  in  the  world  as  a  vain  and  empty  possession,  as 
contrasted  with  the  life  of  the  soul  in  God.  Ps.  xlix.  15  and  Ixxiii.  23  sqq.  (5), 
however,  go  still  further.  When  the  Psalmist  says  in  the  former  passage,  "  God 
will  redeem  my  soul  from  the  power  of  the  grave,  for  He  shall  receive  me"  (6), 
we  may  indeed,  if  we  disregard  the  connection,  understand  him  to  speak  only  of 
deliverance  from  danger.  But  it  must  be  observed  that  these  words  are  spoken 
in  opposition  to  ver.  8  sqq.,  according  to  which  no  man  is  capable  of  redeeming 
the  soul  of  his  neighbor  from  Sheol,  while  the  Psalmist  looks  for  redemption 
from  God  ;  and  to  ver.  14,  which  consigns  the  man  of  the  world  to  the  desolation 
of  the  grave  (7).  Besides,  the  allusion  of  'Jni^'  to  the  passage  concerning  Enoch, 
Gen.  V.  24,  Cil'^t?  irii<  HpS-'S,  is  unmistakable.  Thus  the  Psalmist  is  evidently  ex- 
pressing the  hope  that  there  will  be  for  him  a  rising  from  the  region  of  the 
dead  to  a  higher  life.  To  return  to  Ps.  Ixxiii. ,  it  may  be  disputed  whether  the 
words,  "Thou  shalt  guide  me  with  Thy  counsel,  and  afterward  receive  me  to 
glory,"  ver.  24,  have  regard  to  a  fulfilment  in  this  or  in  another  world.  But  in 
any  case,  ver.  26,  ' '  When  my  flesh  and  my  heart  fail,  God  is  the  strength  of  my 
heart  and  my  portion  for  ever,"  expresses  the  confidence  of  the  Psalmist  that  even 
if  his  heart  fails  in  death,  his  communion  with  God  cannot  be  dissolved  (8). 
Still,  even  in  these  passages  we  have  (as  Delitzsch  well  observes)  no  direct 
word  from  God  for  this  hope  to  lean  on  ;  they  do  but  express  the  postulate  of 
faith,  that  for  tlie  just,  existence  must  issue  in  glory  and  in  the  permanent  pos- 
session of  communion  with  God.  How  this  is  to  be  realized  cannot,  however,  be 
shown.  Hence  the  triumph  of  faith  over  death  and  the  grave  is  accompanied  by 
the  complaint,  so  strongly  and  incisively  expressed  in  Ps.  Ixxxviii.  that  the  seals 
of  death  and  Sheol  remain  as  yet  unbroken  (9).  Let  us  now  see  what  answer  is 
furnished  to  the  enigmas  of  life  by  the  Book  of  Job. 

(1)  Ps.  Ixix.  9  :  "The  zeal  of  Thine  house  hatli  eaten  me  up,  and  the  re- 
proaches of  them  that  reproached  Thee  are  fallen  upon  me." 

(2)  In  saying  which,  we  leave  it  undecided  whether  in  Ps.  xlviii.  14  the  expla- 
nation, "He  will  be  our  guide  at  (or  to)  death,"  rests  upon  the  more  correct 
reading  of  the  text. 

(3)  Still  we  are  not  justified  in  completing  the  thought  (as  Delitzsch  does)  : 
" If  I  should  go  to  rest  in  the  present  peril  of  death."  The  urgent  supplication, 
ver.  13,  that  God  would  arise  to  help  the  suppliant  against  his  ungodly  foes,  is 
not  recalled. 

(4)  Ver.  14,  as,  following  Hengstenberg,  I  have  explained  it  in  the  Commentationes 
ad  theol.  I'M.,  does  not  contain  an  argument  for  tlie  supplication  in  ver.  13,  as 
though  the  Psalmist  were  complaining  to  God  of  the  contradiction  between  the 
prosperity  and  deserts  of  the  wickf^d. 

(5)  Comp.  Klostermann,  Untermchutigen  zur  alttest.  Theol.  1868.      "' 

(6)  'Jrij^:  refers  to  God,  not  to  'l^'^,  whicli  is  feminine  (§78). 

(7)  It  it  quite  arbitrary  to  supplement  ver.  15  with  :  So  far  as  not  to  suffer  it 
to  go  down  to  the  grave  prematurely  or  by  violence  (so  Hengstenberg,  in  the  last 
essay  in  his  commentary  on  the  Psalms). 


§  247.]         SOLUTION    OF  THE    ENIGMAS    IN   THE    ROOK    OF   .TOR.  501 

(8)  The  thought  is  arbitrarily  deprived  cf  its  ineaniii<r  l)y^Tcnrrstenher.'   wlicn 
h^e  supplies  after  ver.   2(i.  :  Through  God's  .uercy  it  wHl    JS,  liowever!  come  to 

(9)  To  the  question,  Does  the  aniunincement  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead 
made  by  the  prophets  find  an  echo  in  the  Psalms  ?  I  feel  obliged  to  return  a 
negative  answer.  It  is  no  longer  disputed  that  xc.  3,  "  Return,  ye  children  of 
men,  does  not  refer  to  it ;  nor  am  I  able  to  adduce  in  support  of  it  cxli  7  "  Our 
bones  are  scattered  at  the  grave's  mouti).  as  when  one  ploweth  and  divideth  the 
earth  J^yen  if  the  image  of  piou-hi.ig  and  scattering  seed  is  explained  by  the 
object  to  which  both  contribute,  still  the  connection  leads  only  to  the  tluMi-rht 
tliat  the  persecution  and  ill-usage  endured  must  result  in  the  triumph  of  the 
1  salmist  s  cause.  Much  rather  might  Ps.  xxii.  20  be  broutrht  forward  San  «tiv 
considered  in  itself,  may  well  be  regarded  as  designating  the  dead;  and  the 
more  so  that  the  connection  of  the  feast  described  ver.  20  with  that  at  which 
death  IS  to  be  swallowed  up  in  victory,  Isa.  xxv.  6-8,  is  sufliciently  T)robal)le 
(comp.  §  233).  But  then  the  expression  D'JiyT  would  be  no  fitting  contrast  •  and 
we  should  have  expected  "  all  the  living"  or  some  such  expression.  On  the  rela- 
tion of  the  Psalms  to  the  last  things,  compare  Delitzsch's  Commentary,  i.  p.  75 

§247. 

Solution  of  the  Enigmas  in  the  Bool  of  Job  (1). 

All  the  enigmas  with  which  Israelitish  wisdom  was  occupied  are  discussed  in 
the  Book  of  Job,  and  every  solution  produced  upon  Old  Testament  soil  is  at- 
tempted. This  book,  how^ever,  does  not,  as  it  has  so  often  been  understood  to  do 
from  a  partial  and  theoretical  view,  carry  on  the  investigation  in  the  form  of  a 
learned  debate.  On  the  contrary,  a  fragment  of  Old  Testament  life  is  at 
once  brought  before  us,  and  it  is  shown,  by  Job's  example,  how  a  righteous 
man  may  fall  into  such  grievous  temptation  as  to  threaten  his  trust  in  God  with 
shipwreck,  and  how  the  struggles  of  faith  at  last  result  in  victory.  This  book 
has  often  been  contrasted  with  Mosaism,  as  coming  to  a  formal  rupture  with  the 
doctrine  of  retribution.  This  is,  however,  far  from  being  the  case,— the  Mosaic 
doctrine  of  retribution  being,  on  the  contrary,  expressly  confirmed  by  the  issue, 
viz.  the  abundant  compensation  of  the  hero  of  the  book  for  his  sufferings.  The 
fact,  however,  that  various  Divine  purposes  are  shown  to  be  the  reason  of  human 
suffering,  points  out  the  insufficiency  of  the  opinion  that  every  infliction  is  to  be 
referred  to  a  corresponding  sin,  and  manifests  the  right  of  every  responsible 
being  not  to  be  judged  absolutely  according  to  outward  appearances.  It  also  in- 
culcates the  duty  of  abstaining  from  hasty  decisions  concerning  obscure  provi- 
dences, and  waiting  with  humility  to  see  their  end.  This  book  teaches  us  to 
recognize  a  fourfold  j)urpose  in  human  suffering.  1.  There  is  a  penal  suffering 
with  which  God  visits  the  ungodly.  This  proposition  is  di.scussed  in  manifold 
aspects  by  the  three  friends  of  Job  (see  especially  ch.  viii.,  xv.  20-3.5,  ch.  xviii. 
and  XX.),  and  at  last  conceded  by  Job  himself  (xxvii.  11  sqq.),  after  again  main- 
taining (ch.  xxi.)  the  impunity  of  transgressors  in  this  world,  and  admitting 
in  ch.  xxiv.  the  occurrence  of  penal  retribution  only  with  respect  to  ordinary 
offenders,  but  denying  the  rule  of  God's  penal  justice  in  the  case  of  great 
criminals  (2).  2.  There  is  a  Divine  chastisement  imposed  upon  all  men,  which  is 
necessarily  due  to  the  natural  impurity   and  sinfulness    of  human    nature,  and 


662  '  OLD   TESTAMENT  WISDOM.  [§  247. 

must  accordingly  be  borne  by  the  righteous  also.  The  latter  submit  patiently  to 
the  infliction  of  such  chastisement,  and  may  therefore  experience  a  restoration  of 
their  prosperity.  This  is  the  doctrine  which  Eliphaz  advances  in  his  first  speech, 
in  explanation  of  the  calamities  of  Job,  ch.  iv.  sq.,  where,  iv.  12-16,  he  refers  to 
a  revelation  imparted  to  him  in  a  night  vision.  3.  There  is  also  a  si^ecial  testing 
and  'purifying  of  the  righteous  imposed  upon  them  by  the  love  of  God,  for  the 
purpose  of  delivering  them  from  some  secret  pride,  of  leading  them  to  humble 
and  penitent  self-knowledge,  and  of  thus  insuring  to  them  the  Divine  favor.  This 
is  the  doctrine  which  Elihu  brings  forward  in  xxxiii.  14-29,  xxxvi.  5-15.  It  is 
closely  connected  with  the  solution  furnished  in  ch.  iv.  by  Eliphaz,  but  yet 
differs  from  it,  inasmuch  as  the  point  of  view  which  the  latter  insists  upon  is  a 
judicial  one,  viz.  that  of  a  penal  discipline  which  must  fall  upon  the  evil  and  the 
just  alike,  on  account  of  their  inherent  sinfulness,  and  quite  irrespective  of 
special  sins,  and  which  has  in  the  case  of  both  a  different  result  only  by  reason  of 
their  different  behavior  under  Divine  chastisement.  The  suffering  of  which 
Elihu  speaks,  on  the  contrary,  concerns  only  the  righteous,  and  is  a  proof  of  the 
saving  love  of  God,  to  purify  them  from  that  pride  of  the  inner  man  vphich 
threatens  them  with  danger  (3).  And,  finally,  4.  There  is  a  suffering  which 
is  designed  to  manifest  the  triumph  of  faith  and  the  fidelity  of  the  righteous. 
This  it  is  which  was  the  immediate  object  of  Job's  afflictions,  as  already  alluded 
to  in  the  prologue  (ch.  i.  sq.),  and  evidenced  to  all  in  the  epilogue.  Proof  is  fur- 
nished in  the  case  of  Job,  in  opposition  to  those  suspicions  on  the  part  of  Satan, 
of  which  his  three  friends  also  rendered  themselves  guilty  by  the  increasing 
temper  with  which  they  spoke,  that  the  faith  of  even  a  true  servant  of  God  may 
be  sorely  shaken,  nay,  that  he  may  be  brought  to  the  very  verge  of  despair,  by 
the  temptation  of  suffering  ;  that  nevertheless  he  cannot,  even  in  the  midst  of 
rebellion  against  God,  entirely  give  Him  up  ;  and,  finally,  that  his  fidelity  stands 
the  test,  though  he  does  not  come  through  the  trial  without  abundant  cause  for 
humiliation.  Such  sufferings  are  akin  to  those  endured  as  testimony,  to  sufferings 
entailed  by  confession  of  the  truth,  and  zeal  for  the  house  of  God,  as  spoken  of 
in  many  of  the  psalms  {e.g.  Ps.  xxii.,  §  233),  and  by  Jeremiah. 

But  while  the  Book  of  Job  thus  offers  a  key  to  these  afflictions  of  the  righteous, 
it  at  the  same  time  furnishes  reasons  for  believing  in  the  righteous  providence  of  God, 
from  the  consideration  of  His  character  and  His  dominion  over  nature.  From  the 
character  of  Ood — in  the  profound  speech  of  Elihu,  ch.  xxxiv.  10  sqq.,  the  funda- 
mental thought  of  which  is  :  God,  by  reason  of  His  power  over  the  world,  can 
never  be  unjust.  For  the  world  is  not  a  thing  alien  to  Him,  a  thing  intrusted  to 
Him  by  another,  but  His  own  possession,  and  all  life  therein  is  derived  from  His 
breath.  God  cannot  be  unjust  to  that  which  He  Himself  called  into  existence, 
and  maintains  therein.  It  is  because  He  is  the  Creator  and  Governor  of  the  world 
that  He  is  also  the  only  source  of  right  therein.  He  so  directs  the  lot  of  individuals 
and  nations,  that  right  is  at  last  made  manifest.  This  oneness  of  power  and  right- 
eousness in  God  is  also  brought  forward  in  the  second  address  of  the  Lord  to  Job, 
ch.  xl.,  and  the  subject  apjilied  to  man,  to  show  that,  if  his  righteousness  is  to  be 
vindicated  at  the  exj^ense  of  the  Divine  righteousness,  he  ought  also  to  be  pos- 
sessed of  Divine  power.  But  Divine  providence  also  may  be  inferred  from  God's 
dominion  over  nature.     This  proposition  is  already  prepared  for  in  ch.  xxviii.,  the 


§  247.]         SOLUTION    OP   THE    ENIGMAS   IN   THE    ROOK    OF   J0I5.  563 

idea  being  there  carried  out  that  man,  tliough  incapable  of  becoming  possessed  of 
the  Divine  wisdom  itself— of  the  thouglit  according  to  which  the  world  is  ordered— 
is  yet  able  to  recognize  its  traces  in  the  whole  economy  of  nature,  and  may  there- 
fore, with  regard  to  the  Divine  appointment  of  human  life,  resign  himself  to,  and 
fall  back  on,  the  fear  of  God.  This  point  of  view  is,  however,  especially  main- 
tained by  Elihu.  God  approaches  man  in  nature  as  an  incomparable  teacher  ('O 
Tiyr:^  ino^,  xxxvi.  22),  everywhere  manifesting  to  him  Ilis  wisdom  and  power. 
And  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  course  of  nature  brings  before  him  so  many  para- 
doxes, so  much  that  is  incomprehensible,  this  furnishes  him  with  a  standard  where- 
by to  judge  that  which  is  incomprehensible  in  human  life,  as  expressed  in  the 
fine  passage  xxxvii.  21  sqq.(4).  The  meaning  of  this  passage  is  :  As,  wlien  the 
light  of  the  sun  is  hidden  from  the  sight  of  man  by  a  cloud,  the  sun  is  nevertheless 
shining  in  the  atmosphere,  and  presently  again  unveils  itself  to  the  eye,  so  God, 
though  His  interposition  is  often  concealed  from  us,  is  surrounded  by  pure  light ; 
and  as  the  dark  north  bears  gold  in  its  bosom,  so  also  is  there  pure  light  behind 
the  obscurity  of  God's  dispensations.  Thus  Elihu  shows  that  man  is  not  obliged 
to  resign  himself  to  such  a  conclusion  as  Job  had  done  in  ch.  xxviii.,  but  may, 
from  perceiving  that  there  is  a  purpose  in  the  Divine  dealings,  at  least  attain  to 
so  much  knowledge,  that  instead  of  arrogantly  censuring  providence,  he  may  con- 
fidently look  for  a  solution  of  its  enigmas. 

(1)  From  internal  evidence,  it  is  probable  that  the  Book  of  Job  must  not  be 
referred,  as  by  many  [e.g.  Delitzsch  in  the  art.  "  Hiob"  in  the  2d  ed.  of  Herzog], 
to  the  times  of  Solomon,  but  to  one  of  the  subsequent  centuries  of  Israel's  adver- 
sity and  affliction.  We  see  from  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  that  it  was  just  in  such 
troublous  national  times  that  men's  minds  were  exercised  by  the  doctrine  of  ret- 
ribution. And  though  it  was  only  the  inconsiderate  among  the  people  who  so 
misapplied  the  saying  of  the  law,  that  God  visits  the  sins  of  the  fathers  upon  the 
children,  as  to  represent  themselves  as  suffering  present  evils  without  their  own 
fault  (an  error  reproved  Jer.  xxxi.  29  sq.,  Ezek.  xviii.,  comp.  §  75),  still  we  see 
from  Jer.  xii.  1  sqq.  how  sorely  even  the  faith  of  a  prophet  was  tried.  [Jeremiah's 
acquaintance  with  the  book  is  pretty  generally  recognized  by  the  modern  critics. 
Hitzig  and  Reuss  place  its  composition  at  the  end  of  the  eighth  century,  Strack  (in 
Zockler,  i.  p.  157  f.)  about  the  year  700,  Dillmanu  and  G.  Baur  in  the  first  half  of 
the  seventh  century.]  For  a  survey  of  the  train  of  thought  in  this  book,  see  the 
Programme  cited,  p.  19  sqq.  Compare  also  my  review  of  Halm's  and  Schlott- 
mann's  Commeritaries  on  the  Booh  of  Joh  in  Revter''s  Rej)ertormm,  1852  [also  Green, 
The  Argument  of  the  Booh  of  Job  uvfolded,  1874,  and  Conant's  Introduction  to  his 
Translation  of  Joh,  1857.— D.] 

(2)  Stickel  (Das  Buch  nioh,  etc.,  1842,  p.  186  sqq.)  was  the  first  to  point  out  the 
correct  meaning  of  this  difficult  section. 

(3)  Hence,  but  for  the  speeches  of  Elihu,  an  essential  aspect  of  the  Divine  pur- 
pose in  sending  affliction  would  not  have  been  treated  of  at  all  in  this  book, — a 
circumstance  which  might  indeed  have  given  a  subsequent  writer  occasion  for  in- 
terpolating this  portion.  Nor  must  it  be  by  any  means  overlooked,  that  without 
these  speeches  there  would  be  no  due  acknowledgment  that  the  three  friends  of 
Job  were  so  far  in  the  right  when  they  asserted  that  affliction  ahrays  has  a  refer- 
ence to  the  sinfulness  of  man.  In  the  place  which  these  addresses  now  occupy  in 
the  book,  they  serve  also  to  prepare  for  that  humble  submission  of  Job  which 
was  to  be  brought  about  by  the  appearance  of  the  Almighty.  See  the  conclusion 
of  the  section.  [Dillmann  and  Delitzsch  both  maintain  that  the  speeches  of  Elihu 
are  a  subsequent  addition  to  the  book.     But  see  Conant,  ih.  vi.-x. — D.  ] 

(4)  Job  xxxvii.  21  sqq.  (a  storm  is  supposed  to  be  approaching)  :   "Now  we  see 


564  OLD  TESTAMENT  WISDOM.  [§  248. 

not  the  sunshine  which  nevertheless  glitters  in  the  cloud  ;  there  the  wind  passeth 
over  it,  and  cleanseth  it.  From  the  north  cometh  gold  :  the  glory  around  God  is 
terrible.  We  find  not  the  Almighty,  who  is  excellent  in  power,  in  judgment  and 
in  fulness  of  justice — He  bendeth  it  not.  Therefore  men  fear  Him  :  He  respecteth 
not  the  wise  of  heart." 

§248. 

Continuation. 

The  question  which  still  remains  to  be  discussed  is,  What  position  does  the 
Book  of  Job,  which  keeps  the  attention  directed  to  the  state  of  man  after  death, 
beyond  any  book  of  the  Old  Testament,  occupy  with  regard  to  the  doctriyie  of  im- 
mortality ?  The  notion  that  its  direct  purpose  is  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  the  im- 
mortality of  the  human  soul,  rests  upon  a  misconception.  It  is,  however,  true 
that  in  it  are  deposited  the  presuppositions  of  the  hope  of  eternal  life.  For  it 
brings  forward,  in  passages  already  mentioned,  the  painful  contradiction  existing 
between  man's  destiny  to  communion  with  God  and  that  descent  to  Sheol  which 
awaits  him,  and  at  the  same  time  testifies  that  the  mind,  in  its  struggle  with  this 
contradiction,  cannot  avoid  attaining  to  a  glimpse  of  its  solution.  A  remarkable 
progress  is  in  this  respect  manifested  in  this  book.  For  though  in  vii.  7  sqq., 
X.  20-23,  the  lamentations  over  the  transitoriness  of  man  and  the  abode  in  Sheol, 
the  region  of  night,  whence  there  is  no  return,  sound  quite  hopeless,  the  hope  is 
already  expressed,  in  ch.  xiv.,  that  the  sojourn  in  Sheol  may  be  but  a  transient 
one,  and  that  the  time  may  come  when  God,  having  a  desire  toward  the  work  of 
His  hands,  shall  turn  again  to  man.  It  is  said,  ver.  14,  "  If  a  man  die,  shall  he 
live?  All  the  days  of  my  campaign,  would  I  wait,  till  my  discharge  came  ;" 
and,  ver.  15,  "  Thou  wouldest  call,  and  I  would  answer  Thee  :  Thou  wouldst 
have  a  desire  to  the  work  of  Thy  hands."  And  the  anticipation  prepared  for 
by  xvi.  18  sqq.  reaches  its  climax  in  the  passage  xix.  25-27,  "I  know  that  my 
redeemer  lives,"  etc.,  where  Job,  no  longer  expecting  a  justification  of  his  inno- 
cence during  the  short  respite  still  allotted  him,  expresses,  on  the  other  hand,  his 
confidence  that  God  will  arise  even  over  his  grave  as  his  Goel,  his  avenger  of 
blood,  to  retrieve  his  honor  before  the  world,  by  inflicting  judgments  upon  those 
who  had  suspected  him,  and  that  he  shall  behold  this  Divine  interposition.  [There 
is  no  ground  to  regard  the  goel  here  as  a  blood-avenger  ;  he  is  rather  regarded  as 
a  vindicatoi'  or  defender.  Dr.  Conant  has  correctly  rendered  the  passage  :  "But  I, 
I  know  my  redeemer  (vindicator)  lives,  and  in  after  time  will  stand  upon  the  earth  : 
and  after  this  my  skin  is  destroyed,  and  without  my  flesh,  shall  I  see  God,  whom  I, 
for  myself,  shall  see,  and  mine  eyes  behold,  and  not  another  :"  or  better,  "whom 
I,  even  I,  shall  see  on  my  side,  and  mine  eyes  shall  behold,  and  not  him  as  a  stran- 
ger."— D.]  Notwithstanding  the  multitude  of  erroneous  explanations  which  have 
been  offered,  the  only  view  which  can  be  accepted  as  doing  justice  to  the  words,  is 
that  which  regards  the  passage  as  expressing  the  hope  of  a  manifestation  of  God 
to  be  made  in  Job's  favor  after  his  death.  It  may  perhaps  be  disputed  whether 
Job's  beholding  God  as  his  Redeemer  (Goel)  is  to  take  place  in  another  world. 
For  certainly  the  view,  advocated  especially  by  H.  Schultz  (1),  that  Job  was  only 
transposing  himself  to  the  period  after  his  death, — that  he  was  now  seeing  with 


§249.]         STANDPOINT  OP  THE   ROOK   OF   EfCLESIASTES,  ETC.  665 

tho  eye  of  the  mind  how  God  would  tlicii  appear  as  his  witness  and  procure  his 
acquittal,— must  not  be  regarded  as  absolutely  impossible.  The  imperfect  nmK  is, 
however,  utterly  unfavorable  to  this  explanation  (2).  Still  the  passage,  even  accord- 
ing to  the  explanation  which  we  have  adopted,  speaks  only  of  a  momentary  be- 
holding, which,  however,  presupposes  a  continuance  of  Job's  communion  with 
God  after  death.  But  the  hope  which  here  flashes  for  a  moment  like  ligiitning 
through  the  darkness  of  temptation,  is  as  yet  no  mature  faith  in  a  happy  and 
eternal  life  after  death,  and  consequently  does  not  furnish  a  solution  to  the  enig- 
mas with  which  the  book  is  occupied.  This  presentiment  of  Job  appears  only  as 
a  last  resort,  if  the  solution  should  remain  undiscovered  in  this  world.  In  the 
course  of  the  poem,  it  is  evident  that  this  glimjjse  of  hope  on  the  part  of  Job  has 
the  effect  of  enabling  him  to  maintain  greater  composure  ;  but  in  the  end  the  so- 
lution is  brought  to  pass  in  a  manner  which  confirms  the  Old  Testament  doctrine 
of  retribution,  and  keeps  the  book  within  Old  Testament  limits.  That  final  so- 
lution of  all  enigmas,  that  the  sufferings  of  this  present  world  are  not  worthy  to 
be  compared  with  the  glory  that  shall  be  revealed  in  tiie  children  of  God,  was 
not  discovered  by  Job,  nor  by  the  Old  Testament  in  general.  By  reason  of  the 
constant  connection  existing  between  revealed  knowledge  and  the  facts  of  reve- 
lation, a  belief  in  eternal  life  which  should  be  truly  stable  could  not  arise  until 
the  acquisition  of  eternal  life,  as  faith  in  Ilim  who  in  His  own  person  overcame 
death  and  brought  life  and  immortality  to  light,  and  who  through  Ilis  redeeming 
work  has  perfected  also  the  saints  of  the  Old  Testament,  Ileb.  xi.  40. 

(1)  See  H.  Schultz,  Die  Voratissetzungen  der  christl.  Lehre  von  der  Unsterllichkeit, 
p.  222,  and  Alttest.  Theol.  ii.  p.  661  sqq. 

(2)  See  Dilhnann  on  the  passage,  and  Orelli,  p.  207  sq. 


FIFTH    SECTION. 
RENXTNCIATION   OF   THE   SOLUTION    IN    THE    BOOK    OF   ECCLESIASTE8    (1). 

§249. 

Standpoint  of  this  Bool.     Inquiry  concerning  Divine  Setribution  and  Immortality. 

The  Book  of  Koheleth  or  Ecclesiastes,  whose  composition  is  probably  to  be  refer- 
red to  the  second  half  of  the  fifth  (comp.  §  191),  or  at  latest  to  the  fourth  cen- 
tury B.C.,  forms  the  conclusion  of  the  canonical  Old  Testament  Hhokhma. 
Its  standpoint  may  be  briefly  designated  as  tliat  of  resignation— an  abandonment  oj 
the  aitemft  to  comprehend  the  Divine  govei-nment  of  the  tcorld,  the  reality  of  which 
to  faith,  it,  however,  firmly  holds.  The  proposition  with  which  the  book  opens, 
"Vanity  of  vanities  ;  .  .  .  all  is  vanity. "  is  not  to  be  taken  in  an  objective  sense,  as 
though  the  world  were  but  the  region  of  chance,  which  the  author  expressly  denies, 
but  in  the  suljective  meaning  that  for  man,  notwithstanding  all  his  efforts  after 
knowledge,  and  all  his  activity,  the  course  of  this  world  yields  nothing  real  or  per- 
manent ;°on  which  account  it  is  immediately  added,  i.  3,  "  What  profit  (J^n:  nO) 
hath  a  man  of  all  his  labour  which  he  taketh  under  the  sun  ? ''     The  latter  sen- 


566  OLD    TESTAMENT    WISDOM,  [§  24f>. 

tence  is  not  intended  to  state  a  problem  which  is  about  to  be  solved  in  the  book, — 
the  question  as  to  what  is  the  supreme  good  being  thus  regarded  as  the  theme  of 
the  work, — for  the  author  has  done  with  the  notion  that  any  f"*^:,  any  result,  is 
to  be  expected.  The  words  are  rather  an  exclamation  in  a  negative  sense,  ex- 
pressing the  fruitlessness  of  all  human  efforts.  This  is  accordingly  proved,  the 
author  speaking  in  the  person  of  the  ancient  king  Solomon,  the  wise  and  glorious 
monarch,  who  had  enjoyed  in  rich  abundance  all  that  this  world  can  offer,  had 
obtained  whatever  man  can  obtain,  and  now  at  the  close  of  his  life  testified  that 
in  all  this  he  had  found  no  real  satisfaction,  no  true  happiness.  Even  the  -nasdom 
of  which  he  possessed  a  larger  measure  than  other  mortals,  had  only  the  effect  of 
convincing  him  that  real  good  is  not  to  be  found  by  man  in  aught  earthly.  This 
negation,  however,  of  all  finite  objects  does  not  advance  to  the  perception  of  a  posi- 
tive and  eternal  object.  On  the  contrary,  absolute  good  being  hidden  from  man, 
nothing  is  left  for  him  but  to  accept  with  resignation  the  relative  good  which 
consists  in  using  this  fleeting  life  as  well  as  possible,  by  being  obedient  to  the 
Divine  commands  and  mindful  of  the  approaching  Divine  judgment,  while  at  the 
same  time  committing  all  to  God  (2),  This  book  is  equally  misunderstood  when 
its  author  is  credited  with  a  knowledge  beyond  the  limits  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  especially  with  the  knowledge  of  eternal  life,  etc.,  and  when  he  is  regarded 
as  a  fatalist  or  an  Epicurean.  So  little  does  this  book  preach  infidelity,  that  its 
author  does  not  surrender  even  one  of  the  doctrines  transmitted  to  him.  That 
there  is  a  Divine  government  of  the  world,  that  there  is  a  righteous  retribution, 
faith  may  not  question  :  it  is  the  hoio  of  these  matters  that  man  is  unable  to  com- 
prehend, God,  it  is  said,  iii,  11,  hath  made  everything  beautiful  in  its  time  ; 
He  hath  also  set  eternity  in  the  heart  of  man.  For  we  are  not  justified  in  giving 
here  to  D Sl;^  another  than  its  usual  meaning,  which  it  retains  also  in  ver.  14,  The 
expression  refers  back  to  the  reflections,  ii,  13  sqq,  (3),  Man,  the  author  would 
say,  cannot  cease  to  seek  that  which  is  eternal  and  imperishable  ;  ' '  but  man  can- 
not  find  out  the  work  that  God  doeth  from  beginning  to  end,"  i.e.  is  never  able 
to  understand  the  result  produced  by  the  God-ordained  course  of  the  world  (4), 
This  appears  especially  in  respect  to  Divine  retribution.  Experience  is  seen  by  the 
author  to  be  always  at  variance  with  the  adoption  of  this  doctrine.  If  the  Book 
of  Proverbs  categorically  lays  down  (as  we  have  seen,  §  343)  the  proposition, 
"  Wisdom  brings  life  ;  folly,  death  ;  the  memory  of  the  just  is  blessed  ;  but  the 
name  of  the  wicked  shall  rot,"  Ecclesiastes  points  out,  ii,  13,  that  "wisdom  ex- 
celleth  folly,  inasmuch  as  the  wise  man's  eyes  are  in  his  head  ;  but  the  fool  walk- 
eth  in  darkness.  But  one  event  happeneth  to  all  :  as  it  happeneth  to  the  fool,  so 
it  happeneth  even  to  me.  There  is  no  more  remembrance  for  ever  of  the  wise 
man  than  of  the  fool ;  seeing  that  which  now  is,  in  the  days  to  come  shall  all  be 
forgotten,  and  how  the  wise  man  dieth  as  the  fool."  To  this  is  added  the  sad  ex- 
perience of  the  impunity  of  the  wicked.  Still  all  this  must  not  destroy  the  postu- 
late of  faith,  viii.  12  sq.  :  "Though  the  sinner  do  evil  a  hundred  times,  and  his 
days  be  prolonged,  yet  surely  I  know  that  it  shall  be  well  with  them  that  fear 
God,  that  fear  before  Him.  But  it  shall  not  be  well  with  the  wicked,  neither 
shall  he  prolong  his  days,"  etc.  ;  comp.  also  the  similar  passage,  iii.  16  sq. 

When  this  contrast  between /ai^A,  which  confidently  assumes  the  existence  of  a 
solution  to  the  contradictions  found  in  the  world,  and  natural  hiowledge,  which 


§249.]         STANDPOINT   OF   THE    liOOK    01-'    fiCCLESIASTER,  ETC.  567 

I)roves  itself  insufficient  in  allcjises,  aiul  cannot  furnisli  ii  solution  to  any  of  the 
enigmas, — when  this  contrast,  wliich  pervades  the  whole  book,  is  considered,  the 
discrepancies  supposed  to  exist  therein  disappear,  and  the  attempt  to  reconcile 
them,  by  forcibly  adapting  one  passage  to  another,  may  be  given  up,  and  its  due 
weight  and  meaning  allowed  to  each.  It  is  from  this  jioint  of  view  that  the 
question  whether  Ecclesiastes  teaches  the  immorttdlty  of  man  must  be  answered. 
Various  answers  may  be  given,  because  three  different  points  of  view  are  taken  in 
the  book  with  respect  to  it  (4), — that,  l«i,  of  natural  reflection  ;  2d,  of  the  old  doc- 
trine of  Sheol ;  Zd,  of  the  assumption  of  a  future  retribution.  From  the  standpoint 
of  natural  observation,  e.g.,  it  is  said,  iii.  19,  that  the  fate  of  man  and  the  animals 
appears  to  bethesamcin  death  ;  for  "  who  knows,"  itis  asked,  vcr.  21,  "  whether 
the  spirit  of  man  goeth  upward,  and  the  spirit  of  the  beast  goeth  downward  to 
the  earth  ?"  That  natural  observation  can  give  man  no  information  in  this  respect, 
sliould  serve  to  humble  him,  ver.  18.  God  would  prove  them,  that  they  may  see 
that  in  themselves  {i.e.  apart  from  their  relation  to  God)  they  are  beasts.  The  old 
doctrine  of  Sheol  is  (6),  on  the  other  hand,  expressed  in  ix.  4-C,  10, — passages 
Avhich  have  been  already  discussed,  Pt.  I.  §  78  sq.  The  third  standpoint  is  as- 
serted at  the  close, where  the  author,  dismissing  all  the  doubts  resulting  from  natural 
observation,  positively  expresses,  xii.  7,  the  tenet  that  the  spirit  of  man  returns  to 
God  who  gave  it ;  and,  xii.  14,  comp.  xi.  9,  that  God  will  bring  every  secret  thing 
to  judgment,  whether  it  be  good  or  whether  it  be  evil.  How  the  author  con- 
ceived of  the  relation  between  the  spirit  that  returns  to  God  and  the  shade  that 
departsto  the  region  of  the  dead,  cannot  indeed  be  determined.  Neither  can  the 
controversy,  in  what  sense  he  teaches  a  future  judgment,  be  decided.  It  is  not 
probable  that  he  transferred  it  to  some  earthly  events  to  be  developed  in  this 
life,  the  expression  "every  secret  thing"  seeming  opposed  to  such  a  notion; 
but  nothing  certain  can  be  stated  on  this  subject. 

(1)  See  the  Introduction  to  Delitzsch's  Commentary  on  Ecdesin-ftes. 

(2)  But  herein  consists  the  advance  made  in  this  book  beyond  the  Book  of  Job, 
which  at  its  close  falls  back  upon  the  Old  Testament  standpoint. 

(3)  In  Eccles.  ii.  12  stjq.,  what  is  simkcn  of  is,  that  the  .satisfaction  wliich  man 
obtains  from  his  efforts  and  labor  is  destroyed  as  soon  as  he  reflects  that  he  tliere- 
by  obtains  no  permanent  result  to  outlast  his  transitory  existence. 

(4)  Many  expositors,  on  the  other  hand,  give  to  dVi;?  the  later  signification  u:orld, 
which  it  had  not  yet  acquired  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  which  affords  no  good 

contrast.  ,     -n        i       i    • 

(5)  Entirely  opposite  views  have  been  taken  in  this  respect,  the  Preacher  being 
said  by  some  entirely  to  deny  existence  after  death,  and  by  others  to  teach  the 
immortality  of  the  soul  and  a  future  judgment.  _        ,        u  j    • 

(6)  It  mio-ht  seem  most  natural  to  tliink  of  a  judgment  following  the  abode  in 
Sheol  where,  accordinir  to  ix.  5,  there  is  no  reward.  But  however  the  passage 
may  be  understood,  positive  testimony  of  the  life  eternal  is  not  found  in  this 
book.     Comp.  also  my  Comment.  Bill.  Tkeol.  p.  83  siicj. 


668  OLD   TESTAMENT   WISDOM.  [§  250. 

§  250. 

Moral  Teaching  of  the  Booh.      Conclusion. 

The  moral  teaching  imparted  in  this  book  corresponds  -with  the  standpoint 
of  resignation  which  it  occupies.  If  an  inexorable  demand  is  made  that  man 
submit  to  the  Divine  will,  and  if  at  the  same  time  the  supreme  aim  of  life 
according  to  that  will,  cannot  be  ascertained  by  him,  while  on  the  other  hand, 
various  aims  are  set  before  him,  all  of  which  he  cannot  but  regard  as  in 
their  measure  lawful,  his  moral  life  must  be  spent  in  a  constant  balancing 
between  different  and  conflicting  claims.  Hence  prudence,  moderation  in  all 
things,  the  injSev  ayav,  is  the  quality  to  be  most  urgently  recommended.  The 
pride  which  boasts  of  virtue  is  reproved,  as  well  as  the  pride  of  knowledge.  To 
this  refers  the  injunction,  vii.  16,  "Be  not  righteous  over-much,  neither  make 
thyself  over-wise,"  which  is  followed,  ver.  17,  by,  "Be  not  over-much  wicked, 
neither  be  thou  foolish,"  the  meaning  of  which  is  :  Do  not  think  thou  canst  be 
free  from  sin  (see  ver.  20)  ;  but  that  thine  inclination  to  sin  may  not  get  the  better 
of  thee,  thou  must  moderate  it.  Ver.  18  :  "  It  is  good  that  thou  shouldest  take 
hold  of  the  one,  and  also  not  withdraw  thy  hand  from  the  other  ;  for  he  that 
feareth  Ood  shall  come  forth  from  them  all."  Thus  the  happy  medium  lies 
between  a  self-righteousness  over-zealous  for  virtue  and  a  sinful  levity  of  life  ;  and 
this  hapi^y  medium  is  inculcated  by  the  fear  of  God,  with  which  (comp.  iii.  12 
sq.)  is  combined  also  a  reasonable  measure  of  the  enjoyments  of  this  life  ;  for  it  is 
said,  iii.  13,  "  That  every  man  should  eat  and  drink,  and  enjoy  the  good  of  all  his 
labor,  is  the  gift  of  God."  But  the  gladness  which  imparts  vigor  to  the  inner 
life  is  not  found  in  the  Preacher.  Placed  in  the  midst  of  vicissitudes  ordained  of 
God  (ver.  1  sqq.),  he  takes  patiently  whatever  comes  as  from  Him,  vii.  14  :  "In 
the  day  of  prosperity  be  joyful,  and  in  the  day  of  adversity  consider  :  God  hath 
made  the  one  as  well  as  the  other,  that  man  may  find  nothing  after  him,"  i.e.  may 
not  fathom  what  lies  behind  his  present  condition.  In  such  patient  Composure 
the  wise  man  does  at  all  times  just  that  which  is  seasonable,  and  commits  the  issue 
to  God.  Thus  are  to  be  explained  the  sayings,  xi.  4  sqq.  :  "  He  that  observeth  the 
wind  shall  not  sow,  and  he  that  regardeth  the  clouds  shall  not  reap  ;"  i.e.,  he  for 
whom  the  weather  is  never  fine  enough,  and  who  is  therefore  always  waiting  for 
better,  generally  misses  the  right  time  ;  ver.  6  ;  "In  the  morning  sow  thy  seed, 
and  in  the  evening  withhold  not  thine  hand  ;  for  thou  knowest  not  which  shall 
prosper,  whether  this  or  that,  or  whether  both  shall  be  alike  good  ;"  i.e.,  be  always 
assiduous  in  thy  calling  :  fulfil  each  hour  that  which  is  incumbent  on  thee,  without 
care  as  to  the  result ;  for  thou  knowest  not  whether  the  labor  of  this  or  of  that 
hour  shall  prosper.  The  frame  of  mind  possessed  by  the  wise  man  in  the  midst  of 
all  this  composure  is  shown  vii.  2-4  :  "  It  is  better  to  go  to  the  house  of  mourning 
than  to  the  house  of  feasting,  for  that  (to  be  mourned)  is  the  end  of  all  men  ;  and 
let  the  living  lay  it  to  heart.  Sorrow  is  better  than  laughter  ;  for  by  the  sadness 
of  the  countenance  the  heart  is  made  better.  The  heart  of  the  wise  is  in  the  house 
of  mourning  ;  but  the  heart  of  fools  is  in  the  house  of  mirth."  Ecclesiastes  may 
be  called  a  book  of  worldly  sadness, — not  the  sadness  of  one  utterly  sick  of  life, 
but  of  one  who,  though  weary,  does  not  suffer  the  stimulus  of  eternity  to  be  plucked 


§  250.]  MORAL  TEACniNQ    OF   THE    HOOK    OF    ECCLESIASTES.  500 

out  of  his  heart,  and  wlio  has  rescued  his  fear  of  God  out  of  the  ruins  of  his  eartlily 
hopes  and  schemes.  Hence  at  its  close,  xi.  9  Sijc]. ,  the  Preacher  exliorts  the  youn- 
man  to  enjoy  the  pleasures  of  youth,  which  vauishes  like  the  dawn,  because  when 
old  age  with  its  infirmity  sets  in,  no  more  pleasure  can  be  attained  in  this  life  ;  but 
while  rejoicing  in  youth,  to  remember  the  Creator  from  whom  all  good  things 
come,  and  never  to  surrender  the  certainty  "that  for  all  these  things  God  will 
bring  him  into  judgment."  The  dialectics  of  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes,  with 
their  mainly  negative  result,  also  form  a  transition /raz/i  the  Old  to  the  New  Test- 
ament.  For  from  a  persuasion  of  the  vanity  of  all  earthly  good,  arises  the  long- 
ing after  the  eternal  and  saving  blessings  of  the  New  Testament,  and  the 
desire  for  the  coming  of  that  immutable  kingdom  of  God  announced  by  prophecy, 
in  which  the  inquiries  of  Old  Testament  and  all  other  wisdom  liave  found  their 
enduring  object  (1). 

(1)  It  lies  beyond  the  limits  of  the  task  we  have  imposed  upon  ourselves  (see 
§  4)  to  show  how  Hebrew  wisdom,  after  exhausting  itself  in  the  way  hitherto 
described,  sought  to  satisfy  its  struggles  after  knowledge  by  combining  Hellenic 
with  Oriental  elements  (comp.  the  article  "  Pjidagogik  des  A.  T."  in  Schmid,  v. 
p.  693  sqq.,  and  "  Buch  der  Weisheit  und  judischer  Hellenismus,"  x.  p.  298  s'qq. 
For  particulars  respecting  the  view  of  the  state  after  death  in  the  Apocrypha,  sec 
the  article  "  Unsterblichkeit  Lehre  des  A.  T."  in  Herzog,  xxi.  p.  424  sqq.,  and 
comp.  H.  Schultz,  Die  Voraussetzungeii  der  chridl.  Lchre  ton  der  Uitsterllic/ikeit,  p. 
239  sqq.).  [Delitzsch  says,  in  the  Introduction  to  his  Commentary  :  "  The  Book 
of  Ecclesiastes  is  on  the  one  hand  an  argument  for  the  power  of  the  religion  of 
revelation,  which  has  rooted  faith  in  one  God,  the  all-wise  and  righteous  ruler  of 
the  world,  so  deeply  and  firmly  in  the  religious  consciousness,  that  the  most  dis- 
cordant and  confusing  imi>ressions  of  the  present  world  are  unable  to  shake  it  ; 
and  on  the  other  hand,  an  argument  for  the  insuflliciency  of  the  religion  of  rev- 
elation in  its  Old  Testament  form,  since  the  dissatisfaction  and  pain  occasioned 
by  the  monotony,  distraction,  and  misery  of  earth  remained  so  long  without  any 
counterbalancing  good  until  heaven  above  the  earth  was  disclosed  and  unveiled 
in  the  historical  facts  of  redemption.  In  no  Old  Testament  book  does  the  old 
Covenant  appear,  as  in  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes,  as  a  nalmovinvov  km  yi/paaKov  eyyvc 
a(pavt(T/iov  (Heb.  viii.  13).  If  the  darkness  is  to  be  dissipated,  a  new  Covenant 
must  be  established,  by  the  entrance  of  celestial  love,  which  is  at  the  same  time 
celestial  wisdom,  into  the  world,  its  victory  over  sin,  death  and  hades,  and  the 
transfer  of  the  centre  of  human  existence  to  the  life  beyond  the  grave.  To  this 
new  time  the  finger  of  prophecy  points.  And  Ecclesiastes,  upon  its  heap  of 
rubbish,  shows  how  needful  it  is  that  heaven  should  now  open  above  the  earth."] 


INDEX    OF    NAMES    AND    SUBJECTS. 


A. 


Aaron,  race  of,  201,  209. 

Abel,  54. 

Abiathar,  375. 

Abijah,  403. 

Abimelech,  361. 

Abram,  Abraham,  60-64, 165, 181,  229. 

Achan,  81,  82. 

Achelis,  109. 

Achor,  Valley  of,  82. 

Adhonai,  92. 

Adonis,  102. 

Adrammelech,  413. 

Adiiltery,  230  seq.,553. 

After-Passover,  325. 

Ages  of  the  world,  118. 

Ahab,  King,  390  seq.  ;  the  false  prophet, 

420. 
Ahasuerus,  427. 
Ahaz,  408  seq. 

Ahaziah,  of  Israel,  391  ;  of  Judah,  404. 
Ahijah,  384,  388. 
Alexandrian  theology,  23. 
Almond  blossoms,  257. 
Altar,  255. 
Amaziah,  405. 
Ammonites,  180,  516. 
Amon,  412. 
Amorites,  76. 
Amos,  388,  395  seq.,  407,   464,  476,   502, 

526. 
Analogia  tidei,  25. 
Angel  of  the  Lord,  129,  131  seq. 
Angel ology,  Mosaic,  134  seq.  ;  prophetic, 

441,  seq. 
Angels,  names  of,  446  seq. 
Anammelech,  413. 
Anointing    of   the    high    jiriest,  215  ;    of 

kings,  368  ;  of  prophets,  392. 
Anthropology  of  Mosai.sm,  145. 
Anthropomorphism.s,  99,  111. 
Anthropopathies,  115. 
Apis  worship,  68. 
Apocalypse,  Jewish,  434. 
Apocrypha,  10,  13. 
Archaeology,  biblical,  7  seq. 


Ark  of  the  Covenant  (see  Covenant). 

Artaxerxes  Longimanus,  428. 

Asa,  403. 

Asarhaddon,  400. 

Ashera,  worshij)  of,  390. 

Assyria.  396  seq.,  408  seq.,  412,  520. 

Athaliah,  404. 

Athenagoras,  469. 

Atonement,  the  day  and  designation  of, 
309  ;  date  of,  309  ;  rites  of,  311  ;  signi- 
fication of,  315  ;  antiquity  of,  315. 

Atoning  sacrifice,  264,  300  seq. 

Atwater,  E.  E.,  254. 

Auberlen,  39,  73,  151. 

Augustine,  22,  185,  229,  707. 

Authorities,  theocratic  :  legislative,  217  ; 
judicial,  219  ;  executive,  223. 

Authorship,  i)rophetic,  406. 

Azariah,  the  prophet,  403  ;  the  king,  405. 

Azazel,  159,  450. 

B. 

Baal,  worship  of,  390. 

Baal-Berith,  359. 

Baasha,  388. 

Babel,  56. 

Babylon,  499,  502. 

Bachmann,  347. 

Biihr,  75,  215,  218,  247,  254,  261,  271,  279. 

296,  361,  321,  322,  326,    330,    347,  349, 

380. 
Baier,  30. 

Balaam,  76,  479,  522. 
Ban,  81,  293. 
Baudissiu,    40,   53,  63,  78,  89,   94,  96,  97, 

105,  108,  251,  314,  389,  438. 
Barucli,  402. 

Bauer,  Bruno,  36,  192,  194,  465,  475. 
Bauer,  Lor.,  33,  34. 
Bauiugarten-Crusius,  33. 
Baur.  F.  C,  33,  35,  192,  194,  329,  347. 
Baur,  G.,  59,  157,  166. 
Beck,  J.  T.,  145.  483. 
Bellarmine,  27. 

Bengel,  J.  A.,  30,  31,  108,  110,  490.  527. 
Benjamin,  tribe  of,  385. 
Berosns,  418, 


573 


INDEX    OF   NAMES   AND   SUBJECTS. 


Bertheaii,  187,  360,  419,  427,  430,  494. 

Bestmann,  194,  270,  558. 

Bethel,  387,  392. 

Bleek,  310. 

Blessing,  in  Abraham's  seed,  62  ;  parent- 
al, 66,  67  ;  divine,  195. 

Blood,  avenging  of,  236  seq. 

Blood,  152,  263,  276  seq.,  306,  312. 

Body,  149. 

Bohl,  486,  512,  529,  533,  535. 

Bottcher,  151,  172,  515. 

Bredenkamp,  40,  47,  67,  75,  191,  202,  213, 
251,  300,  303,  454,  455. 

Briggs,  C.  A.,  41. 

Brotherhood,  56,  148. 

Brown,  F.,  261. 

Bruch,  383,  538. 

Buddensieg,  50,  53,  411. 

Buddeus,  30. 

Burk,  30,  540. 

Burnt-offering,  211,  263,  284. 

Burnt-offering,  altar  of,  253,  255. 

Buttmann,  33. 

Buxtorf,  439. 

C. 

Caiaphas,  466,  479. 

Calixtus,  28. 

Calf  worship,  388,  389. 

Calvin,  25,  27,  165,  189,  526. 

Canaanites,  hardening  of,  123,  165  ;  ex- 
termination of,  81  ;  incomplete,  84  ; 
selfdom  of,  244. 

Candlestick  in  the    sanctuary,  256. 

Canon,  10. 

Capital  punishment,  222. 

Captivity,  Assyrian,  398  ;  Babylonian, 
420,  422. 

Carchemish,  417. 

Caspari,  410,  446,  457,  494,  529. 

Cassel,  65. 

Census,  77,  371. 

Ceremonial  law,  182,  451. 

Chaldeans,  417. 

Cherubim,  257,  379  seq. 

Children,  the  blessing  of,  148,  196,  553. 

Chronicles,  367. 

Circumcision,  historical  origin  of,  191  ; 
religious  import  of,  193. 

Civil  institiations,  553. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  93,  187. 

Clericus,  31,  247. 

Cocceius,  29,  461. 

Collegia  biblica,  30. 

Colin,  33,  439. 

Coming  of  the  Lord,  521. 

Condition,  physical,  of  the  organs  of 
revelation,  142,  474. 

Conscience,  153,  158,  183  ;  predictions  of, 
482. 

Countenance,  the  Divine,  127. 

Court  of  the  Tabernacle,  254. 

Courts  of  the  Temple,  379. 


Covenant,  first  breach  of,  74  ;  book  of  the, 
46,  79,  184  ;  ark  of  the,  257,  356,  361, 
372,  381,  521  ;  sacrifices  of,  263. 

Covenant  of  God  with  Israel,  175  ;  new, 
19,  457,  507. 

Covenants  of  promise,  56,  60,  175. 

Covering,  in  atonement,   277. 

Creation,  account  of  the,  50  ;  doctrine  of, 
116  ;  Babylonian  tradition  of,  50. 

Cremer,  151. 

Creuzer,  33. 

Criticism,  8. 

Crusius,  30,  471. 

Cultus.  See  Worship. 

Cuneiform  inscriptions,  50,  53,  398,  399, 
411,  413,  422. 

Cup  of  Trembling,  449. 

Curse,  the  Divine,  195. 

Cursing,  water  of,  230,  321. 

Curtiss,  12,  205. 

Cuthah,  399. 

Cuthites,  399. 

Cuvier,  51. 

CyiJrian,  133. 

Cyrus,  424. 

D. 

Dan,  385. 

Daniel,  424,  453,  474,  476,  478. 

Daniel,  Book  of,  434,  496,  503,  528. 

Darius  Hystaspis,  427. 

Dates,  prophetic,  488. 

David,  anointing  of,  369  ;  reign  of,  371  ; 
theocratic  position  of,  372  seq.  ;  relig- 
ious character  of,  373  ;  zeal  for  Divine 
worship,  375  ;  promise  to,  372,  523. 

Day  of  mourning,  423. 

Day  of  the  Lord,  409. 

Dead,  region  of  the,  170  seq.,  551,  557 

Death,  fear  of,  557. 

Death,  the  consequence  of  sin,  166. 

Deborah,  354,  355,  364. 

Decalogue,  its  division,  184  ;  its  system, 
188. 

Deism,  Deists,  30,  198,  266. 

Delitzsch,  Franz,  12,  39,  40,  94,  97,  102, 
117,  131,  134  seq.,  139,  145,  151,  155 
seq.,  169,  205,  251,  262,  266,  303,  347, 
383,  386,  400,  440,  479,  503,  519,  522, 
533,   540,  542,  560. 

Delitzsch,  Friedrich,  329. 

Deliverance  from  Egypt,  70. 

Deluge,  traditions  of  the,  54. 

Demosthenes,  20. 

Dettinger,  111,  135. 

Deutero- Isaiah,  424,  453,456,  460,  489, 
517,  532. 

Deuteronomv,  46,  78,  130,  177,  184  seq., 
204,  207,  219  seq.,  224,  240  seq.,  324, 
349,  352,  486. 

Devotion,  vow  of,  292. 

De  Wette^_33,_a§  seq.,  42,  198,  358,  472. 

Devling,  265.  - 

Diestel,  32,  59  seq.,  108  seq.,  173,  316. 


INDEX    OF   NAMES    AND   SUBJECTS. 


r.r3 


Dilation,  law  of,  490. 

Billmann,  12,40,191,  202,  205,  213,  24.'5, 
251  seq.,  273,  289,  300,  301,  303  seq.i 
307,  309,  3U,  334  se(i.,  345,  3ol,  543, 
544,  550.  5G3,  565. 

Discipline,  545,  554,  561. 

Dispensation,  a  new,  necessary,  455. 

Divination,  natural,  481. 

Divorce,  231. 

Dog,  price  of  a,  294. 

Dominion,  extent  of,  Israelite,  77. 

Dorner,  14. 

Doves  or  pigeons,  offering  of,  269. 

Drechsler,  9G. 

Dreams,  142  seq.,  478. 

Drink-offering,  273. 

Diisterdieck,  481. 

Duhm,  40,  389,  455,  474,  534. 


E. 

Ebers,  66. 

Ebrard,  490. 

Ecclesiastes,  its  composition,  429,  565  ; 
canonicity,  430  ;  standpoint,  565  ;  doc- 
trine of  retribution,  560  ;  doctiine  of 
immortality,  567  ;  ethics,  568  ;  transi- 
tion to  the  New  Testament,  569. 

Ecstasy  of  the  prophets,  469. 

Eden,  'l37. 

Edomites,  59,  76,  192,  422,  501,  518. 

Education  of  children,  233,  553,  554. 

Egypt,  as  confirming  the  Bible,  66,  68,  70, 
81,  84,  192. 

Eichhorn,  390. 

Elah,  388. 

Elders,  220. 

Election  of  Israel,  176  seq.,  197  seq. 

Eli,  357,  361. 

Eliezer,  the  prophet,  403. 

Elihu,  562. 

Elijah,  173. 

Elisha,  391.  395. 

Elkanah,  363. 

Elohim,  57,  61,  87,  98  seq.,  146,  219. 

Elohistic  narrative  in  Genesis  I.,  51. 

Encampment,  74. 

Enemies,  love  of,  549. 

Enigmas  of  human  life,  556  ;  struggle  for 
their  solution  in  the  Psalms,  557  ;  in 
Job,  561  ;  renunciation  of  their  solution 
in  Ecclesiastes,  565. 

Enoch,  54,  165,  173. 

Ephod,  215,  359. 

Esarhaddon,  399. 

Esther,  428,  430. 

Eternity  of  God,  100. 

Eudnsmonism,  apparent,  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, 196,  552. 

Eusebius,  133. 

Evil,  52,  122,  554. 

Ewald,  11,  13,  33,  39,  49,  71  seq.,  97,  118, 
166,  276,   286,   189,  295,  303,  317,   325, 


342,  344,  384,  398,   407,   416,   428,  459, 

502,  529.  534,  543,  545,  551. 
Exegesis,  36  seq. 
Exile,    Assyrian,    398  ;    Babjionian,    419, 

423. 
Existence  of  God,  16,  540. 
Ezokiel,  418,  419  seq.,  423,  439,  445,  453, 

455,  458,  473,  476  seq..  502. 
Ezra  429,  431  seq.  434  seq. 

F. 

Faith,  154,  459,  567. 
Faithfulness  of  God,  95,  112  seq.,  505. 
Families,  laws  concerning,  234. 
Fasting,  293,  309,  423. 
Fatherhood  of  God.  178,  456. 
Fat,  offering  of  to  God,  290  seq. 
Fear  of  the  Lord,  546. 
Festivals,  Mosaic,  323. 
Figurative  prophecy,  524. 
FiUing  the  hand,  211,  213. 
Fire,  sacred,  the  282. 

First-born,  both  kinds  of,  203  ;  redemption 
of,  232,  298  ;  rights  of,  234  ;  of  cattle,  298. 
First-fruits,  298. 
Fisher,  G.  P.,  83. 
Flood,  traditions  of.  54  seq. 
Flour,  offering  of,  306. 
Food-offering.  474.  478. 
Four,  the  number,  260. 
Fowls,  269. 
Free  cities,  208,  237. 
Fundamental  articles  of  Judaism,  7. 

G. 

Gabler,  33. 

Gabriel.  446. 

Gad.  371,  374. 

Gcdaliah,  421. 

Geflfcken,  187. 

Genius,  religious,  of  Israel,  14. 

Genesis  I.   and  II.,  connection  between, 

51  seq. 
George,  325. 
Gerhard,  27,  29. 
Ghillany,  267. 
Gibeonites,  376. 
Gideon.  354,  359,  368. 
Gilgal,  385. 

Girls,  names  of,  194  ;  education  of,  554. 
Glory  of  God,  110,  128. 
Gnostics,  23. 
God,  existence  of,   15  ;  name  of.  437  ;  its 

change.  61,  63. 
God,  the,  of  heaven,  444. 
God,    the    idea   of,   in   Mosaism,    86  ;   in 

prophctism.  437. 
God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  60, 126. 
Godet,  111. 
Gog.  502,  503. 
Good,  moral,  realization  of.  in  individual 

life,  551  ;  in  social  circles,  555. 


574 


INDEX    OF    NAMES    AND    SUBJECTS. 


Graf,  C.  H.,  12,  40,  358,  452. 
Graf,  E.,  481. 
Gramberg,  33,  414. 
Grau,  59,  161. 
Green,  W.  H.,  12,  41,  205. 
Gregory  the  Great,  24,  470. 
Guilt,  inherited,  94. 
Giirtler,  N.,  28. 

H. 

Habakknk,  Book  of,  465. 

Haggai,  427,  502. 

Hahn,  H.  A.,  151,  525. 

Hallel,  347. 

Ham,  Hamites,  56. 

Hamann,  481. 

Hanani,  403. 
,     Hananiah,  420. 

Hand,  filling  the,  211,  213. 

Hand,  laying  of  the,  upon  the  sacrifice, 
274,  305,  307. 

Hand,  the,  of  God,  466. 

Hasse   37 

Haver'nick,  37,  163,  260,  439,  529. 

Hazael,  391,  395. 

Heart,  153. 

Heathen  nations,  relation  of  to  Israel,  180, 
495  ;  judgment  of,  501  ;  admission  of 
into  the  kingdom  of  God,  516. 

Heave-offering,  290. 

Heavenly  bodies,  the,  412. 

Hegel,  10,  34,  35,  140,  149,  546. 

Hengstenberg,'  37,  38,  60,  62,  64,  78,  89 
seq.,  131  seq.,135,  170,218,  343,  257  seq., 
261  seq.,  262,  288,  314,  316,  334,  335, 
347  seq.,  358,  360,  390,  399  seq.,  430, 
446,  459,  472,  477,  480,  486  seq.,  491, 
493  seq.,  501,  503,  508,  510,  522,  524, 
528,  532,  536,  560. 

Herder,  35,  439. 

Herzfeld,  377,  429. 

Hesiod,  49. 

Hess,  37. 

Hezekiah,  400,  409. 

Hhokhma  (see  Wisdom). 

Hieronymus  (see  Jerome). 

High-Priesthood,  201,  215;  history  of ,  357, 
374  seq.,  582;  of  the  Messiah,  543. 

Hiller,  30. 

Hinnom,  413,  415. 

Historical  Composition,  Old  Testament, 
366  seq. 

Historical  and  philosophical  treatment  of 
religion,  33  seq.,  36  seq. 

History,  Israelitish,  7,  9. 

Hitzig,  343,  162,  452,  515,  516,  520,  538, 
556. 

Hofmann,  2,  37,  350,  447,  528,  543. 

Holemann,  52,  92. 

Holiness  of  God,  73,  87,  106,  159,  505  ;  of 
Israel,  108  seq  ;  of  places,  108  ;  of  sacri- 
fices, 284  ;  of  seasons,  108. 


Holy  of  Holies,  258,  378,  380. 

Holy  Things,  254  seq. 

Hommel,  00. 

Honey,  270. 

Hophra,  419. 

Horns  of  the  altar  of  burnt  offering,  253, 

255 
Hosea,  the  prophet,  395,  407,  526. 
Hoshea,  397. 
Host  of  heaven,  439  seq. 
Hoiises  or  families,  235. 
Huldah,  414. 

Human  sacrifices,  64,  265,  360,  413. 
Hupfeld,  39,  337,  340  seq.,  347,  559. 
Hyksos,  71. 

I. 
Idolatry,  388,  395. 
Image  of  God,  143. 
Immanuel,  527. 

Immortality,  169,  174,  198,  551,  559,  567. 
Imprecations  in  the  Psalms,  558. 
Incense,  meaning  of,  273. 
Inheritance,  law  of,  234. 
Intercession  of  the  Servant  of  the  Lord, 

532 
Introduction,  O.  T.,  7. 
Irenasus,  133,  145.- 
IStiRC    64 

Isaiah,  398,  401,  406,  408,  473,  526 
Ishmael,  61. 
Islam,  17,  546. 
Israel,  64. 
Israel,  tribes  of,  66  seq.,  200  seq.,  382,  425. 

J. 

Jacob,  64,  122,  148,  234. 

Japhet,  Japhetites,  56. 

Jahaziel,  403. 

Jealousy  of  God,  114. 

Jealoiisy  offering,  232,  320. 

Jehoahaz,  of  Israel,  395,  404;of  Judah,  417. 

Jehoiachin,  418. 

Jehoiakim,   417  seq. 

Jehonadab,  393,  394. 

Jehoram  of  Israel,  393  ;  of  Judah,  404  seq. 

Jehoshaphat,  403  ;  valley  of,  501. 

Jehovah,    the  name,   126  ;    pronunciation 

and  grammatical  exiilanation  of,  92  seq.  ; 

import  of,  95 ;  age  and  origin  of,  96 ;  com- 

jjarison  of  with  Elohini  and  El,  98. 
Jehovah  Sabaoth,  437  seq. 
Jehu,  the  prophet,  388,  394,  403;  the  king, 

393,    395. 
Jephthah,  360. 
Jeremiah,    402,  407,    415,    417,    452,    456, 

466,  473,  478,  502,  562. 
Jeroboam,  188,  384,  388. 
Jeroboam  II.,  395. 
Jerome,  470,  493. 
Jerubbaal,  360. 
Jerusalem,  63,  372,  374,  509. 
Jews,  385  seq. 


INDEX    OF   NAMES   AND    SUBJECTS. 


575 


Jezebel,  390. 

Joash  of  Israel,  395  ;  of  Judah,  40-1. 

Job,  Book  of,  450,  556,  501. 

Jochebed,    97. 

Joel,  402,  404,  400,  490. 

Jonah,  395  ;  Book  of,  492,  498. 

Joseph,  66,  122  seq. 

Joshua,  75,  81,  3G5  ;  the  high  priest,  425  ; 

Book  of,  84,  327,  355. 
Josiah,  402,  414,  513,  535. 
Jotham,  405  seq. 
Jubilee,  year    of,  law  of,    337  ;  import   of, 

342  ;   jjracticability    of   the    ordiuunce, 

343. 
Judah,  tribe  of,  66  seq. ;  kingdom  of,  385, 

400  seq. 
Judges,  Book  of,  353  seq.,  355  seq. 
Judges,  times  of  the,  353  seq. 
Judgment,  prediction  of,  upon  Israel,  196, 

500  ;  upon  the  heathen  nations,  501. 
Jus  talionis,  195. 

Justice,  administration  of,  219,  403. 
Justin  Martyr,  23,  469. 


Kadesh-Barnea,  74,  76. 

Kahnis,  131. 

Kaiser,  G.,  Ph.  Ch.,  33. 

Kant,  33,  34. 

Kapporeth,  253,  257,  317. 

Kautzsch,  113  seq.,  400,  504. 

Kayser,  40,  416. 

Kebla,  137. 

Keil,   102,    104,   135  seq.,   167,    179,   255, 

259    seq.,    280,  301,   304    seq.,  309   seq., 

313,  323,   334,  342,  344,  430,  477,  511, 

516,   520. 
King,  law  of  the,  224  ;  consecration  of,  369. 
Kings,  Book  of,   368. 
Kingship,  368  ;    in  Judah,   400,  402  ;  the 

Divine,  199  ;  the  Messianic,  521,  528. 
Kittel,  R.,  40,  259,  303. 
Kleinert,  119,  427,  430,  520,  526. 
Kliefoth,  262,  493,  515. 
Knobel,  193,  283,  291   seq.,  309. 
Kohler,  18,    187,  194,  203.   273,   275,   280, 

322,  358,  374,  517,  529. 
Konig,  364,  367,  394,  465,  467,  477,  480, 

483,  539. 
Korah,  207. 
Koran,  138. 
Kranichfeld,  367. 
Kurtz,  39,  64,  131,  185,  187,  262,  272,  282, 

301,  308,  350. 
Kubel,  440. 

Kuenen,  10,  40,  365,  465. 
Kiiper,  465. 

L. 

Land,  Holy,  its  boundaries,  77  ;  conquest, 
81  ;  division,  83  ;  character,  83  ;promi'^(s 
concerning,  60,  62,  509. 

Lardner,  31. 


Lasaulx,  21,  481. 

Laver  in  the  court,  256. 

Law,  the,  182  ;  relation  between  the  moral 
and  ceremonial,  183,  451  ;  covenant  of, 
72  ;deliglit  in,  456. 

Leaven,   345,  349. 

Lechler,  K.,  76,  188. 

Lemmc,  187,  190,  335. 

Li'prosy,  its  defilement,  319  ;  purification 
from,  302  seq.,  319. 

Leprosy  in   houses,  319. 

Lessing,  33. 

Levi,  66,  74,  163,  202. 

Levirato  marriage,  235. 

Levites,  cities  of  the,  207,  208,  357,  433. 

Levites,  the,  representation  of  Israel  by, 
203  ;  ofticiid  functions  of,  206  seq. ;  so- 
cial position  of,  207  ;  position  of  in 
the  times  of  the  Judges,  357  seq. ;  or- 
ganization of  imder  David,  376  ;  their 
subsequent  history,  388,  425,  426,  429, 
430,  433. 

Lydecker,  28. 

Liebetrut,  330. 

Life,  196,  550  ;  eternal,   see   Immortality. 

Light.  110,  256. 

Living  God,  100. 

Logos,  the,  133,  543. 

Long-suffering  of  God,  74,  123. 

Lord,  the,  97  seq. 

Lot,  the,  122,  218. 

Love  of  God,  177  ;  to  God,  184,  549  ;  to 
our  neighbor,  549. 

Luther,  16,  25  seq.,  96,  112,  190,  360.  430, 
558. 

Lutz,  39,  147. 

M. 

Maimonides,  24,  295,  470. 

Majus,  29. 

Malachi,  432,  434,  453. 

Man,  256. 

I\Ian,  idea  of,  145  ;  elements  of  his  nature, 
149. 

Manasseh,  the  king,  412  ;  the  jiricst,  432. 

Maniclieans,  23. 

Manticism,  20,  140,  143,  485. 

Mantle  of  the  ijrophets,  392. 

Marcion,  22. 

Marriage,  its  idea,  147,  553  ;  a  symbol  of 
the  fellowship  of  God  with  Israel,  456  ; 
law  of,  22'<  ;  conclusion  of,  226  ;  hin- 
drances to,  228  ;  dissolution  of,  230  ; 
Roman  law  <if,  230. 

Mead,  C.  M.,  152. 

Jleat-offering,  474,  478. 

Mediator.ship  of  the  priesthood,  209. 

Megiddo,  416. 

Meier,  E.,  289. 

Melanchthon,  23  seq. 

Melchizodek.  59,  61,  63,  201,  525. 

Menahem,  3'.*i',. 

Menken,  36  aeq.,  108. 


576 


INDEX    OF   NAMES    AKD    SUBJECTS. 


Mercy  of  God,  87,  115. 

Mercy-seat.    See  Kajjporeth. 

Merx,  406. 

Merz,  380. 

Messianic  hope,  the,  discrepant  features  of, 
490,  521  ;  its  roots  found  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch, 522  ;  its  foiindation  in  a  nai'- 
rower  sense,  523  ;  in  the  Psalms,  523  ; 
in  the  earlier  prophets,  526  ;  pro^jhetic 
doctrine  of  the  nature  of  the  Messiah, 
526  ;  His  office  and  work,  530  ;  His  snt- 
ferings,  531. 

Metatron,  134. 

Micha,  Ephraimite,  356  seq.,  359  ;  the 
older  prophet,  391,  449  ;  the  younger, 
407,  410,  494,  526. 

Michael,  446. 

Michaelis,  J.  D.,  31,  228,  243,  295,  342. 

Mietziner,  240. 

Milkom.     See  Moloch. 

Miracles,  17,  124,  138,  362,  391. 

Miriam,  364. 

Mnevis  worship,  68. 

Moab,  Moabites,  59,  180,  192,  516,  518. 

Moloch,  63,  68,  69,  268,  413. 

Momma,  28. 

Monogamy,  148. 

Monotheism,  Semitic,  59  ;  of  Mosaism, 
102. 

Morgan,  32. 

Moses,  calling  of,  70  ;  mediatorial  posi- 
tion, 74,  75  ;  sinning  of,  76  seq.,  164 
seq. ;  death,  78  seq.  ;  importance,  80  ;  a 
prophet,  363. 

Movers,  63,95,  368,  382,  410  seq. 

Munk,  94. 

Music,  366  seq.,  375  seq. 

N. 

Naboth,  237. 

Nadab,  388. 

Niigelsbach,  E.,  39. 

Nahum,  398,  417. 

Name  of  God,  124,  127. 

Names,  significance  of ,  195  ;  giving  of,  194, 
195 

Nathan,  372,  375,  378. 

Nature,  its  relation  to  man,  156,  510  ;  con- 
templation of,  121,  260,  543. 

Nazarites,  262,  294,  302,  304,  365. 

Nebuchadnezzar,  417,  479. 

Necho,  416. 

Nehemiah,  431. 

Nethinim,  376. 

Neumann,  262,  266,  289. 

New-moon,  336  ;  ditto  Sabbath,  336  seq., 
425. 

New-year,  336,  425. 

Niebuhr,  197. 

Nitzsch,  K.  I.,  44,  230,  247,  543. 

Noachian  commandments,  57. 

Noadiah,  432. 

Noah,  54,  165. 


Noldeke,  11,  252. 

Numbering  of  the  people,  77,  371,  448. 


O. 


Oath,  the,  a  means  of  proof,   230  ;  an  act 

of  worship,  250. 
Oath  of  God,  176. 
Obadiah,  406,  421,  504. 
Obduracy,  123,  163. 
Ode.  151. 
Oded,   398. 

Oetinger,  3,  30,  98,  110,  540,  545,  555. 
Oil,  at  the  offering,  273. 
Omnipotence  of  God,  88,  91,  126. 
Omnipresence  of  God,  111. 
Omri,  390. 
Orelli,    147,  192,  202,  374,    455,  477,  488, 

504,  511,  515,  520,  523,  533,  536,  565. 
Origen,  23,  93,  185,  469. 
Oschwald,  331. 
Otto,  125,  185. 
Outram,   262,  276. 


Palms,  381. 

Pan-offerings,  277. 

Parents,  authority  and  rights  of,  232,  555. 

Particiilarism,  180  ;  overcome,  399. 

Passover,     enactments     concerning,     345 

seq. ;  significance  of,  348  seq.  ;  history 

of,  81,  399,  410,  415. 
Patriarchs,  60,  65,  364. 
Peace-offerings,  their  name  and  idea,  287  ; 

division,    288  ;  material  of,   289  ;  ritual 

of,  289  ;  existence  of,  in  the  times  of  the 

judges,  356. 
Pekah,  397. 
Pekahiah,  397. 

Penalties  of  the  Mosaic  law,   222. 
Pentateuch,   criticism   of,    9,   12,  75,  102, 

120,  135,  141,   171,  175,  207,  243. 
Periods,  system  of,  28. 
Petermann,  434. 
Perjury,   249. 
Pharaoh,  70,   164. 

Philo,  61,  80,  92,    185  seq.,  254,  256,  469. 
Pilgrimage  festivals,  345. 
Plagues  of  Egypt,  70  seq. 
Pledges,  laws  concerning,  241. 
Plural,  quantitive  and  of  majestj',  87  seq. 
Plutarch,  20,  103. 

Poena  vicaria,  275,  278,  308,  316,  322. 
Polygamy,  148. 
Polytheism,    in  the   Old   Testament,    88, 

103  seq.,  135  seq. 
Praeteritum  j)ropheticum,  488. 
Pragmatism  theocratic,  367. 
Prayer,  256,  479. 
Pre-existence  of  the  soul,  151. 
Presence  of  God,  124,  127,  130. 
Preservation  of  the  world,  119. 
Priests,  Priesthood,  pre-Mosaic,  201  seq. ; 


IHDEX   OV   KAMES   AND   SUBJECTS. 


-.77 


position  and  calling,  209  ;  history,  357, 
374.  ;i75,  388,  402,  404,  413,425,431, 
435  seq. ;  priesthood  of  Israel,  179; 
priestly  consecration,  210  scq. ;  cities 
of,  207,  208,  212. 

Primitive  state,  153,  156  seq.,  158  seq., 
172,  182. 

Prophecy,  general  office,  484  ;  predictions 
of  individual  occitrrences,  486  ;  its 
peculiarities,  488  ;  its  relation  to  fulfil- 
ment, 487. 

Prophecy  of  word  and  deed,  401  ;  medium 
of  revelation,  465  ;  its  history,  362,  370, 
384,  386,  391,  392,  394,  402,  403,  432, 
492. 

Prophetic  Books,  connection  between  the, 
407. 

Prophetic  consciousness,  464  seq.  ;  its 
earlier  definition,  468  seq.  ;  definition 
in  Protestant  theology,  471. 

Prophets,  false,  391,  394,  419,  420,  434, 
464,  478. 

Prophets,  sons  of  the,  392  ;  schools  of  the, 
365,  392. 

Prophetship,  its  place  in  the  theocracy, 
nature  and  import,  219,  362. 

Proselytes,  426. 

Protevangelium,  53,  522. 

Proudhon,  236,  334. 

Proverbs,  Book  of,  550  seq. 

Providence,  121,  562. 

Psalms,  373,  375,  531,  547,  551,  557,  558  ; 
Elohistic,  88,  92,  99  ;  Messianic,  524  ; 
imprecatory,  558. 

Psvchology  of  nations,  59. 

Pul,  396. 

Purifications,  Levitical,  319  ;  from  sus- 
picion of  giiilt,  320  seq. 

Pnrim,  feast  of,  428. 

Purpose  of  the  Creation,  121. 


Q. 


Queen-Mother,  402. 

B. 

Eanke,  J.  H.,  203,  207. 

Kanke,  L.,  374,  411. 

Raphael,  447. 

Rationalism,  33. 

Rawlinson,  412. 

Recbabites,  393  seq. 

Redemption,  the  future,  505. 

Redemption   of  family  possessions,    235 

seq. 
Red  Sea,  70. 

Reformation  in  Judah,  402,  404,  414. 
Eehoboam,  385,  400. 
Reichel,  503. 
Remnant  of  Israel,  507  ;  of  the  heathen, 

516. 
Renan,  59. 
Repentance  of  (lod,  4;)2  i^oq. 


Resurrection,  513  seq.,  560  soq. 
Rest  from  labor  at  festivals,  326  seq. 
Retribution,  Mosaic  doctrine  of,  195  seq. ; 

its  relation  to  Divine  election,  197  scq.; 

attacks  ujion,  198  ;  theHhokhma  upon, 

248,  561,  556. 
Return  of  the  Jews,  424  seq. 
Reuben,  66. 
Reuchlin,  24  seq. 
Reuss,  40,   191,   251,   358,  374  seq.,  376, 

433,  543. 
Revelation,  11  seq.  ;  general,  14  ;  special, 

15  ;  forms  of,  128  seq. 
Revelation  side  of  the  Divine  Being,  124. 
Rezin,  408. 
Riehm,  203,  208  seq.,  224  seq.,  238  seq., 

259,  276,   280,  299,  301,  304  seq  ,   309, 

318,  334,  340,  358,  447,  481,  485,  496, 

524,  530,  534. 
Riggenbach,  254,  255. 
Righteousness  of  God,  112,  497  ;  of  man, 

IGS;  181,  183,  459,  507,  557. 
Ritschl,  20,  114  seq.,  280  seq. 
Ritter,  84. 

Ritual.    See  ceremonial  law. 
Rod,  Aaron's,  209. 
Roos,  30,  31,  145. 
Rougemont,  462. 
Rosenkranz,  6,  183. 
Rothe,  8  seq.,  21,481. 
Rupprecht,  108,  110. 
Rust,  34. 
Ruth,  370  ;  Book  of,  235. 

S. 

Saalschiitz,  110,  221. 

Sabaoth.     See  Jehovah. 

Sabbath,  creation,  50  ;  weekly,  antiquity 
and  origin  of,  326  seq. ;  idea  of,  332  ; 
observance  of,  334. 

Sabbatical  year,  law  of  the,  337  ;  import 
of,  342  ;   practicability  of  keeping,  343. 

Sack,  K.  H.,  43. 

Sacrifice,  idea  of,  261  ;  pre-Mosaic,  54 
seq.,  56,  263,  265  ;  origin  of,  265  ;  ma- 
terial of,  266  seq.  ;  principle  on  which 
the  material  is  fixed,  272  ;  ritual  of, 
274  ;  kinds  of,  287. 

Sacrificial  doctrine  of  the  Hhokhma,  547 
seq. 

Sacrificial  flesh,  consumption  of,  by  the 
priests,  307. 

Sacrificial  repasts,  292. 

Salem,  63. 

Salt,  270  seq. 

Salvation,  experience  of,  19,  461. 

Samaria,  390.  396. 

Samaritans,  399,  426,  432,  434. 

Samson,  296  seq. 

Samuel,  294,  359,  361,  362,  365,  368,  370. 

Kanballat,  432. 

Siinchoniuthon,  93. 


578 


lirt)t:X   OF   NAMES  AND   SUfeJECtS. 


Sanctuary,  Mosaic,  arrangement  of,   252 
seq.  ;  signification  of  its  parts,  254  ;  and 
vessels,  255  ;  tribute  for,  299. 
Sargon,  398,  411. 
Satan,  159,  314,  448  seq. 
Saturn,  worship  of,  69,  192,  331. 
Saubert,  262. 
Saul,  144,  370,  448. 
Schelling,  34,  63,  320. 
Schleiermaclier,  2,  21,  487. 
Schmid,  Ch.  F.,  6, 12. 
Schmid,  S.,  30. 
Schmieder,  108,  452,  529. 
Schnell,  221,  344. 
Scholasticism,  24. 

Schrader,  96,  98,  135,  330,  398,  411,  439. 
Schultz,  6,  11,  16,  39,  44  seq.,  60,  62,  67, 
75,  89  seq.,  96, 98,  105,  131,  134, 136, 137, 
147,  168,  191,  194,  251  seq.,  260,  273, 
280,  281,  389,  439,  486,  525,  533,  535, 
564.  ^ 

Scorners,  384. 
Scribes,  434. 
Scythians,  416. 

Seasons,  sacred,  review  of,  323  ;  designa- 
tions of,  324  ;  times  of,  324  ;  celebration 
of,  326. 
Seed  of  Abraham,  522. 
Seer,  364,  475,  477. 
Semler,  31. 

Sennacherib,  409,  411. 
Seraphim,  444  seq. 
Serpent,  brazen,  76  seq. 
Servant,  the,  of  the  Lord,  181,  517,  532. 
Servile  classes,  239  ;   Israelite,  240  ;  non- 
Israelite,  244. 
Seven,  the  number,  256,  324,  328,  331,  333, 

445. 
Sexual  relation  of  man  and  woman,  147. 
Shalamim.     See  Peace-ofEerings. 
Shallum,  396. 
Shalmanezer,  398. 
Shamgar,  354. 

Shekhina,  112,  137,  254,  255,  431. 
Shemaiah,  the  prophet,    385  ;    the   false 

prophet,  420. 
Shem,  Semites,  56,  58. 
Sheol,  170,  512,  551,  557,  567. 
Shew-bread,  253,  256. 
Shiloh,  83,  522. 
Shishak,  403. 
Shopheten.      See  Judges. 
Shuckford,  31. 
Simeon,  77,  79,  385. 

Sin,  origin  of,  52,  158  ;  a  disturbance 
of  the  aim  of  the  world,  121  ;  its  rela- 
tion to  divine  causality,  122  ;  Old  Testa- 
ment names  of,  158  ;  an  inclination, 
161  ;  hereditary,  162  ;  resistible,  164  ; 
degrees  of,  164  seq.  ;  increasingly  pro- 
found perception  of  in  the  prophets, 
455  ;  forgiveness  of,  461,  507. 
Sin-ofEering,  definition  of,  301,  303  ;  rit- 


ual of,  305  ;  import  of,  307  ;  not  men- 
tioned in  the  Book  of  Judges,  356  ;  lack- 
ing in  the  days  of  redemption,  453. 

Sirach,  12,  549. 

Slaughter  of  the  victim,'  275. 

Slaves,  Slavery,  239  seq.,  244  ;  female,  245. 

Sleep,  prophetic,  478. 

Smend,  516. 

Smith,  G.,  328  ;  W.  E.,  11,  12,  205,  365  •, 
E.  P.,  365. 

So,  398. 

Socinianism,  27,  29,  146,  185. 

Solomon,  reign  of,  378  seq. ;  founder  of 
the  Hhokhma,  383  ;  Song  of,  553. 

Song,  sacred,  233,  366,  372,  373,  375. 

Sonship,  Divine,  460  ;  of  the  people,  178, 
456  ;  of  the  king,  374  ;  of  the  Messiah, 
524. 

Sopherism,  434. 

Soul,  149. 

Spencer,  31,  32,  265. 

Spener,  30. 

Spirit  of  God,  112  ;  in  creation,  118  ;  in 
preservation,  119  ;  the  vehicle  of  revela- 
tion, 124,  133,  362,  465  ;  the  principle 
of  regeneration,  463,  507. 

Spirit,  the,  of  man,  149. 

Spirituality  of  God,  112. 

Stade,  467. 

Stahelin,  208. 

Stars,  worship  of,  413. 

Steudel,  6,  21,  36,  38,  131. 

Stickel,  563. 

Stier,  12. 

Stuhr,  36. 

Substitution,  262,  532. 

Suffering,  import  of,  531,  554,  561  seq. 

Sulpicius  Severus,  22,  23. 

Siipernaturalism,  earlier,  17  seq.,  36  seq., 
473. 

Susannah,  Book  of,  423. 

Sykes,  262. 

Symbol  in  worship,  246. 

Symbolism,  prophetic,  476. 

Synagogue,  403,  423  ;  the  great,  435. 

Syncretism,  68,  359  seq. 

T. 

Tabernacle,  75,  84,  251,  356,  361,  372,  376, 

381. 
Tabernacles,  feast  of,  352,  388. 
Table  of  nations,  57. 
Talmud,  163,  538. 
Temple     of    Solomon,    preparation    for, 

375  ;  building  of,  378  ;  description  of, 

379  ;   vessels  of,  379  ;   significance   of, 

380  seq. ;  dedication,  381  ;  in  the  latter 
days,  519. 

Ten,  the  number,  184,  188. 

Ten  tribes,  kingdom  of,  387. 

Teraphim,  58,  60. 

Tertullian,  23,  469,  514. 

Testament,    Old,    practical   import   of,   1 


INDEX   OP   NAMES  AND  SUBJECTS. 


t.ro 


scq. ;  Olfl  and  Now,  their  mutual  rela- 
tion, 2  soq.,  18  soq.,  'M\,  550,  5(J'J  ;  their 
relation  to  heathenism,  18. 

Thank-offering,  280. 

Thenius.  3G7,  415. 

Theocracy,  199,  223. 

Theodidasklia  of  the  new  covenant,  3G3, 
508. 

Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  428. 

Theodoret,  429. 

Theology,  biblical,  the  name,  32  ;  method 
of,  41  ;  Old  Testament  definition,  of,  4  ; 
importance  to  divinity,  2  ;  relation  to 
other  Old  Testament  subjects,  7  ;  his- 
tory of,  22  ;  divisions  of,  43. 

Theophany,  99,  124. 

Therai)euta3,  245. 

Thiersch,  229. 

Tholuck,  4(35,  469,  477,  494. 

Tibni,  389. 

Tiglath-Pileser,  397,  408. 

Tirzah,  390. 

Tithes,  298,  388. 

Topical  lectures,  30. 

Tribes,  heads  of,  225. 

Tributes,  the  theocratic,  298. 

Trichotomy  of  man,  151. 

Trinity,  the,  88,  133,  142. 

Trip,  131. 

Trumpets,  sounding  of,  336. 

Tutelary  spirits,  national,  447. 

Twelve,  the  number,  381. 

U. 

Umbreit,  33,  145,  147,  519,  524,  526. 

Unchangeableness  of  God,  95,  100. 

Unity  of  God,  102. 

Universality  of  the  Divine  kingdom,  496. 

Urijah  the  prophet,  417. 

Urim  and  Thummim,  215,  218,  435. 

Uzziah,  405,  406. 

V. 
Vatke,  34,  36,  45,  358,  364,  382,  390,  413, 

440,  484. 
Vilmar,  297. 
Visions,  142  seq.,  476. 
Vitringa,  29,  472. 
Voice,  the  Divine,  128. 
Vows,  292. 

W. 
Warburton,  31. 

Watchman,  prophetic  office  of,  365,  369, 
476. 


Water  of  cursing.  320. 

Waving,  2i»7,  211,  290. 

Weber,  115. 

Week,  the  cycle  of.  328. 

Weeks,  feast  of.  150. 

Wellhausen,  12,  40,  75,  84,  191,  202,  205, 
208,  212,  213,  251,  299,  303,  318,  330, 
337,  310.  349,  358,  410,  433,  454. 

Winer,  125,  170,  303,  425,  430. 

Wisdom,  Old  Testament,  43,  382  neq.; 
the  Books  of,  537  ;  relation  to  revelation 
and  to  worldly  wisdom,  537  ;  its  princi- 
ple of  knowledge,  540  ;  form,  540  ; 
divine,  541  ;  its  personification,  543  ; 
its  part  in  the  universe,  541  sei^.;  its 
intervention  in  human  affairs,  545  ; 
human  wisdom,  546  ;  practical,  547  ; 
Book  of,  13,  152. 

Witsius,  29,  4G3,  472. 

Woman,  position  of,  226  ;  heathen.  227, 
429. 

Word,  the,  its  place  in  wor-ship,  248. 

Word  of  God.  94,  116,  128,  542. 

World,  the,  ages  of.  49  ;  covenant  of,  56. 

World,  the,  kingdoms  of,  503.  See  also 
Gentiles. 

Worship,  nature  of,  246  ;  state  of  in  the 
times  of  the  Judges,  355  seq. ;  under 
David,  375  ;  after  the  captivity,  434 
seq. ;  prophetic  view  of,  452  ;  place  of, 
501. 

Wrath  of  God,  115. 

Wui-m,  P.,  90,  100. 

X. 

Xerxes,  428. 

Z. 

Zachariio,  33,  34,  106. 

Zachariah,  the  king,  390  ;  the  prophet, 
405. 

Zadok,  the  high  priest,  213,  375,  377  ;  the 
scribe,  436. 

Zechariah,  427.  476,  534. 

Zedckiah,  the  king,  419  ;  the  false  proph- 
et, 421. 

Zephaniah,  407,  415,  416. 

Zerah,  403. 

Zerubbabel,  425. 

Zezschwitz,  187. 

Zimri,  388. 

Zion,  372. 

Zi^ckler,  539,  545,  548,  551,  552. 

Ziillig,  186. 


TEXTUAL   INDEX. 


GENESIS.  PAGES 

i.  1,  sq....  51,53,99.  116 

i.  2 53,117 

i.  3,  G,  9 IIU,  117 

i.  11 119 

i.  14 50,  325,440 

i.  22 52 

i.  24 149 

J.  26 88,  103,145,149 

i.  27 88,117,147 

i.  28 52,  148 

i.  29 157 

i.  31 52,  121,156 

U 137 

ii.  1,2 119,  328.  4;« 

ii.  3 K'O,  ;W2 

ii.  4 50,  .51,  99 

ii.  7,  9.. 119,  146, 149, 150, 

551 

ii.  16 52 

ii.  17,  18....  147,  157,  1.58, 
106,  168 

ii.  19,  sq 146 

ii.  20 146 

ii.  25 156 

iii 157,158,159,259 

iii.  1-3 158 

iii.  1,4 159,161 

iii.  2,5 156,158 

iii.  6,  7 1.59,  IM 

iii.  8 .52,157 

iii.  10,  14 161,321 

iii.  15 52,  .5:^,  522 

iii.  17....52,  122,  157,  *42 

iii.  18 157 

iii.  19 157,167 

iii.  21 168 

iu.  22....  52,  53.  146.1.57, 
160, 167,  .551 

iii.  24 137,2.59 

iv 135,  162,263 

iv.  1 148,  .523 

iv.  3,  6 164,  262 

iv.  7 160,  166 

iv.  10 174,237 

iv.  14 137,  2:« 

iv.  18,19 87,  148 

iv.  23,  24 9,  54,  .55 

iv.  25 148 

iv.  26 54,99,  135 

V.  22 165 

V.  a* 173 

V.  29. . . .  54,  121, 157,  »32, 

523 

vi.  1-1 55 

vi.  1,  sq 135. 136 

vi.  3....  120, 121,  141,161. 

168 
vi.  5 162 


GENESIS.  PAGES 

vi.  13,  17 120,150 

vii.  1 165 

vii.  4,  10 328 

vii.  15,  16....  99,  100,  150 

vii.  21,  22 149,  169 

viii.  2 110 

viii.  10,  12 328 

viii.  20. .  .56,  250,  263,  265 

viii.  21 119,  121,  1.53, 

162,  26;j,  265 

ix.  2 146 

ix.  4 56,  152,277 

ix.  5 2.37 

ix.  6 145,  146,2:^6 

ix.  9 175 

ix.  11 121 

ix.  25,  27 57,  162,239 

ix.  26,  sq 99 

X.  8 56 

X.  21 58 

xi 58,499 

xi.  7 103 

xi.  31 68 

xii.  1 58,  178,525 

xii.  3 57,  121,495,522 

xii.  5 150 

xii.  6 60,  81,a56 

xii.  7,  8 IC,  250 

xiii.  7 81 

xiii.  15 60 

xiv.  13 58,  59 

xiv.  14 239 

xiv.  18-22 61,6:3 

xiv.  18 89 

XV 266 

xv.2,8 101,239 

XV.  6....  61,  165,  181,459 

XV.  9 269 

XV.  12,  13 65,71,  143 

XV.  15 196 

XV.  16..  12.3,  160,  16.3,  l!t6 

XV.  18 77 

xvi.  2,3 148 

xvi.  7,  It 129 

xvi.  13.. 101,  102,  112,129 

xvi.  14 100 

xvii   193 

xvii.  1...91,  126,  181,194 

xvii.  5-8 60 

xvii.  6 194 

xvii.  6,7 17.5,224 

xvii.  11,  12..191,  2.57,  328 

xvii.  14 l.-)0 

xvii.  16 224 

xvii.  23 2:39 

xviii.  3.5 101,  153 

xviii.  18 60,121,495, 

&22> 


GENESIS.  PAGES 

xviii.  19.. 61,  63,178,181, 
233 

xviii.  20,  sq 129 

xviii.  23 01,  6:32 

xviii.  25 113 

xviii.  26,  sq 196 

xviii.  27,  30 101,168 

xix.  13,  18 129,132 

xix.  24 1:3:3 

xix.  36 162 

XX  .3,6 14:3 

XX.  4 101 

XX.  7 61,364 

XX.  13,  16 89,278 

x\i.  3    194 

xxi.  4 328 

xxi.  17 121.  12!) 

xxi.  28 249 

xxi.  32,  sq 234 

xxii 178,262,  200 

xxii.  11 267 

xxii.  12,  14 129 

xxii.  16 60,  132 

xxii.  18..61,495,  522,  524 

xxii.  24 148 

xxii.  28 119  , 

xxiii.  4 61  1 

xxiv.  2 249 

xxiv.  3 229 

xxiv.  7,40 1.30  I 

xxiv.  .35 2:39 

xxiv.  53,58 229 

XXV.  6 148 

XXV.  8 170,  liHi  ■■ 

XXV.  9,  18 87,  172 

XXV.  21 148  t 

XXV.  23 64  j 

xx\i.  2-5 64  1 

xxvi.  4 495,  522  | 

xxvi.  12,  14 239.344 

xxvi.  19 234 

xxvi.  24....  174,  181,250  , 

xxvi.  35 151  I 

xxvii.29 84  1 

xxvii.  42 fv4  I 

xxvii.  45 236,  2:38  . 

xxviil.  3 91 

xxviii.  10,  sq 04 

xxviii.  12...  130,  135,  143 

xxviii.  13 174 

xxviii.  14 495.  .522 

xxviii.  15...  103,  105,112. 
121  I 

xxviii.  17 108 

xxviii.  18 250 

xxviii.  20-22 292,  300  1 

xxix.  18 241 

xxix.27 328l 


I  GENESIS.  PAGES 

I  xxix.  31,32 148,195 

,  XXX 195 

!  XXX.  2 148 

XXX.  3,9 148 

XXX.  17,  22,  23 148 

XXX.  28 94 

XXX.  35 58 

xxxi.  12,  13 130 

xxxi.  19 58 

xxxi.  42 88 

xxxi.46,  sq 234 

xxxi  53 60,  88,  249 

xxxi.  54 263 

xxxii.  2,  sq 135 

xxxii.  2 442 

-xxxii.  11 121 

xxxii.  21 278 

xxxii.  24,  sq 64,  05 

xxxii.  29-31 128,  130 

xxxii.  31 127 

xsxiii.  11-13 128 

xxxiii.  20  2»4 

xxxiii.  2:3  128 

xxxiv .74,  75, 

xx.xiv.  3,  6,8 1.51 

xxxiv.  12 227 

XXXV.  1,  14 250 

XXXV.  2 106 

XXXV.  4 356 

XXXV. 7  ..   ..81,  130,234 

XXXV.  9,  Bq 64 

XXXV.  11 91 

XXXV.  20 2:34 

XXXV.  29 170,  1?2 

xxxvi.  31-39 224 

xxxvi.  43 87 

xxxvii.  6,  eq 143 

xxxvii.  35 170 

xxxviii 234 

xxxviii.  9 148 

xii 143.470 

xii.  8 151 

xii.  38 141 

xliii.  14 91 

xliv.  32 67 

xlv.5-7 121 

xiv.  5-8 65 

xiv.  8  122,  123 

xlvi.  2.  eq 65 

xlvi.4 112 

xlvii.  20 62 

xlvii.  29  249 

xlviii.  3 91 

xlviii.5 66,200 

xlviii.  14 06 

xlviU.  15 130 

xlix 202 

xlix.  1 489 


582 


TEXTUAL   INDEX. 


GENESIS,  PAGES 

xiix.  3 201 

xlix.  5-7 66,203 

xlix.  10 84,522 

xlix.  18 551 

xlix.  25 91 

xlix.  26 297 

xlix.  33 170 

1.  5,25 249 

1.  11 234 

1,  13 172 

1.20 65,121,122 

EXODUS. 

ii.  1,  sq 70 

ii.  24 66 

iii 133 

iii.2 130 

iii.  5 108 

iii.  6 66,  126,174 

iii.8 83 

iii.  13-15 93 

iii.  13,  sq 95 

iii.  14,  15 94,95,  96 

iii.  15,  gq 126 

iii.  20 138 

iii.  22 68,72 

iv.  10,  13 101 

iv.  11 120 

iv.  16 363 

iv.  21...  123,  154,  164,  165 

iv.  22,  sq 178 

iv.  24,  sq 193 

iv.  31 459 

V.2 97 

vi.  2,  sq 98 

vi.  3 90 

vi.  6,  sq 70 

vi.  9 151 

vi.  14 225 

vi.  16-20 72 

vi.  20 97 

vii-xii 70 

vii.  1 363,365 

vii.  3 123,  165 

vii.  4 74,  438 

vii.  23 155 

viii.  5,  sq 70 

viii.  15,  28 140,  165 

viii.  18,  19.... 70,  97,  139, 

165 

ix.  16....70,  123,  496,  497 

ix.  27 113 

ix.  34 165 

X.20 263 

sii.  1-28 345 

xii.2 323,336 

xii.  12 70,  104 

xii.  13 346,  451 

xii.  14-17 218 

xii.  15,19 222 

xii.  22 264 

xii.  23 451 

xii.  26,  sq... 333,  248,  346 

xii.  87 348 

xii.  33,  sq 68 

xii.  35,  sq 71 

xii.  38, 180,244 

xii.  41 200,4.38 

xii.  43-49 345 

xii.  44,  48....  180, 244, 346 

xii.  45 244,  340 

xiii 203 

xiii.  2 267 

xiii.  3-9 345 

xiii.  6,8 233,  346 

xiii.  9 326 

xiii.  13..262,  267,  269,298 

xiii.  14,  sq 233,248 

xiii.  15 165,282 

xiii.  21 130,  2.58 

xv.  19 130 


EXODUS.  PAGES 

xiv.  M,  sq 130 

xiv.  31 71,459 

XV.  2 93 

XV.  11....18,  70,  104,106, 

138,  140 

XV.  13,  sq 72 

XV.  18 73,199 

XV.  20 248,364 

xvi.  5 328 

xvi.  22-30 328 

xvi.  23,  29 334,  335 

xvii.  12 460 

xvii.  15 528 

xviii.  11,  12.. 70,  103,  263 

xviii.  13,  sq 220 

xviii.  15 219 

xviii.  19-26 219,220 

xviii.  21 226 

xix.  1 73,  351 

xix.  4 175,  179,  184. 

246 
xix.  5,  sq..l75,  177,  179, 

181,  495 

xix.  6 200 

xix.  8 175,  181 

xix.  10,  14 106 

xix.  13 339 

xix.  21 201 

xix.  22,  sq  201,202 

XX.  2....175, 176, 177, 184 

XX.  1-17 184 

XX.  2-6 184,  185 

XX.  3,6 102,  104,186 

XX.  4 Ill 

XX.  5 114,  162,238 

XX.  6 163,  185 

XX.  7,  8 127,249,328 

XX.  9,  10 333 

XX.  11 104,  332,334 

XX.  12 197,232 

XX.  17..  164,  183,  1S4,  187 

XX.  24,  sq... 246,  ;i50,  253, 

263 

xxi.  1-11 241 

xxi.  2 343 

xxi.  6 219,242 

xxi.  7-11 242 

xxi.  7 227 

xxi.  10 148,227,233 

xxi.  12,  sq..  122,222,245 

xxi.  12-14 237 

xxi.  13 122,237 

xxi.  14 237 

xxi.  15,  sq 232,233 

xxi.  20,  sq 219,245 

xxi.  22 222 

xxi.  23-25 195,  222 

xxi.  28,  sq 238 

xxi.  30,33 278 

xxii.  2 240 

xxii.  6-10 222 

xxii.  8 90 

xxii.  11 249 

xxii.  12,16 221,227 

xxii.  19 293 

xxii.  20 240 

xxii.  25,  sq 241 

xxii.  27 189,219 

xxii.  28,  29..  154,  267,269 

xxiii.  6-8 222 

xxiii.  9 240 

xxiii.  10-17 324 

xxiii.  10,  sq 337 

xxiii.  12,  14 327,  3.33 

xxiii.  15.... 264,  323,  327, 

345,  350 

xxiii.  16 336,351 

xxiii.  17....233,  252,  337, 
.346 

xxiii.  19 298 

xxiii.  20,  sq 130 


EXODUS.  PAGES 

xxiii.  21 125,142 

xxiii.  20-33 493 

xxiv 73,  176,  263,  431 

xxiv.  5 202,  263 

xxiv.  7 184 

xxiv.  10,  11 143,201 

xxiv.  16 128 

XXV.  2,  sq 288,289 

XXV.  9,40 255 

XXV.  20 259 

XXV.  22 252,254,  257 

XXV.  23-30 253,256 

XXV.  29,  sq 256 

xxvi.  1-14 253 

xxvii.  1.  sq 253 

xxvii.  21 218 

xxviii.  1 201 

xxviii.  6  359 

xxviii.  12,  29.... 214,  216 

xxviii.  30 218 

xxvin.  31,  35....  21,5,217 
xxviii.  38...  214,217,202 

xxviii.  40-42 210 

xxviii.  41 206 

xxviii.  43 218 

xxix 215 

xxix.  1 206,  210 

xxix.  1-37 210 

xxix.  5-9 215 

xxix.  6 215,  296 

xxix.  7 213,216 

xxix.  7-12 206 

xxix.  10 274,  305 

xxix.  12 306 

xxix.  14,  15....;. 211,  305 

xxix.  20 350 

xxix.  21,  24.. 213,  264,  290 

xxix.  30,  bq .349 

xxix.  33 280 

xxix.  36 211,  .305 

xxix.  38-42 285 

xxix.  42,  sq 252 

xxix.  43,  sq.,..  108,246, 

248,  250 

XXX.  6 252 

XXX.  10 312 

XXX.  11-16  201 

XXX.  12,  sq.. 277, 280,  299 

XXX.  17,  sq 253 

XXX.  18 321 

XXX.  21....'. 256 

XXX.  30 213 

xxxi.  3 141 

xxxi.  13..   ..191.246,328 

xxxi.  13-17 '.....333 

xxxi.  14,15 222,  330, 

3.34 

xxxi.  16.  sq 176,191 

xxxi.  17 104 

xxxii 68,130 

xxxii.  sq, 115,  201 

xxxii.  4 388 

xxxii.  4-8 89 

xxxii.  5,  19 .324 

xxxii.  5 327 

xxxii.  10,  sq 114 

xxxii.  15 184 

xxxii.  26-29  75,  211 

xxxii.  29 203 

xxxii.  32,  sq....  278,  5-33 

xxxiii.  3 130 

xxxiii.  11,12 79,177 

xxxiii.  14,  8q....l27,  1.30 
xxxiii.  17,  sq  ,.  128,  137 
xxxiii.  19,  20.  .96,  97,281 

xxxiii.  .34 130 

xxxiv.  6 74,115.  126, 

197,  506 

xxxiv.  7 160,162 

xxxiv.  9 101,127 

xxxiv.  10 139,175 


EXODUS.  PAGES 

xxxiv.  11-27 46,  191 

xxxiv.  13,  sq 81 

xxxiv.  14,  16....  114, 115, 

227  350 
xxxiv.  20...  262,  267,'269, 

323,  327 

xxxiv.  21 334 

xxxiv.  22,  23....  102,  337 
xxxiv.  24,25....  189,348 

xxxiv.  31 223 

XXXV.  2,3 334 

XXXV.  5 154 

XXXV.  21 151,  289 

XXXV.  29...   288 

XXXV.  31   141 

xxxvi.  16 109 

xxxvii.  26-28 109 

xxxviii.  8....22,  297,  360 

xxxviii.  25,  sq 299 

xxxix.  2,  sq 359 

xxxix.  18  350 

xl 258 

xl.  6 274 

xl.  12-15 210 

xl.  15 210,213 

xl.  34 110,128,250 

xl.  34-38 137,258 

xl.  36-38 133 

LEVITICUS. 

i.-iii 284,285 

i.  1 284 

i.  3,4 274,285 

i.  5, 6 276,  282 

i.  7-9 281 

i.  9,  13 262.  283 

i.  11,  15 275 

i.  16 308 

i.  17 262,  282 

ii 270,  283 

ii.  1,  2 270,273,282 

ii.  3 262 

ii.  4,  sq 270 

ii.  9 291 

ii.11,12 .270 

ii.  13 271 

ii.  14,  15 270,273 

iii.2 ...274,289 

iii.  3-5 290 

iii.  3,  9 262 

iii.  6 289 

iii.  9-11 290 

iii.  11,  16 272 

iii.  13 276 

iii.  14-16 290 

iv 284 

iv.  1,  sq 2.37,284 

iv.  2 164,300,310 

iv.  3,  5.. 214, 317,  305,  308 

iv.  4 374 

iv.  ,5-16 306 

iv.  6,  17 277 

iv.8 291 

iv.  10,  19 282,291 

iv.  11-21 306 

iv.  12 282,308 

iv.  13 217,302 

iv.  1.3,  sq...  300,  305,  308 
iv.  22,  28....  164,  300,306 

iv.  24 275 

iv.  28,  32 306 

iv.  29 275 

iv.  .30,34 277,306 

iv.31 307 

iv.  33 262,275 

V.  1 221,  249 

V,  1-13 301 

v.2,  3 .300,319 

V.  4,  sq 249,  250 

V.  6,  7 269,301  .306 

v.  10 461 


tteXTtJAL  iNbEJt. 


583 


LEVITICUS.       PACKR 

V.  11 207,  273,301 

V.  13 2«2,  S&J,  309 

V.  13,  14 301.308 

V.  14,  sq ;jol 

V.  14,  20 284 

V.  15,  18.... 300,  302,  304, 
30.-) 

V.  17-19 300,  301 

V.  21,  sq 24!) 

V.  26 278 

vi.  1,  sq 213 

vi.  1-6 301 

vi.  2-6 314 

vi.  5,  sq 28i 

vi.  7,  sq 28;^ 

vi.8,  9,  sq 28;^.  291 

vi.  10 2m 

vi.  12,  sq 207,  282 

vi.  15,  sq 282 

vi.  17-23 305 

vi.  18 27.5,284 

vi.  22 284.  306 

vi.  2:i,  28 280.306 

vi.  27 318 

vii 276 

vii.  1 284 

vii.  1-7 305 

vii.  2 276 

vii.  6 283,  284 

vii.  7 276,  280 

vii.  8 285 

vii.  11,  sq 288 

vii.  12,  sq 289 

vii.  13 271,  292 

Vii.  15 288,291 

vii.  16-18 288 

vii.  18 509 

vii   19 292 

vii.  23-25 290 

vii.  29-34 290 

vii.  33 292 

vii.  35,  sq 213 

vii.  37 211,284 

viii 210 

viii.  8 218 

viii.  12 213,  216 

viii.  15 211 

viii.  20,  22  211,282 

viii.  25,  sq 292 

viii.  27 290 

viii.  28,  30 211,213 

viii.  33,  sq 211,213 

ix.  .3,  15 269,306 

ix.  4 289 

ix.l8 287,289 

ix.  19,  sq 290 

ix.  22,  24.... 137,  246,  282 

X 282 

X.2 126,282 

X.3 211 

X.  7 217 

X.  9,  sq 295 

X.  10,  11 209 

X.  12 284 

X.  17 278,307 

xl  268 

xi.4-6 269 

xi.8 319 

xi.23,  sq 319 

xi.39,eq 819 

xi.  41 106,  270 

xi.  44,  sq 182,  268 

xii 162,.319 

xii.  6,  8  269 

xii.  20 292 

xiii.  sq 319 

xiv.  1-32 320 

xiv.  5,  6 319,320 

xiv  7  316 

xiv.  10 269,  :304 

xiv.  11.  sq 302 


LEVITICUS.       PAGES 

xiv.  13  25 275 

xiv.  20 283,  285 

xiv.  21,.sq .301 

xiv.  22 306 

xiv.  :«,  sq 319 

xiv.  3:1-57 320 

xiv.  50,  51 312,319 

XV 162,319 

XV.  4,  sq 319 

XV.  15,  30 278 

xvi 311,319,  450 

xvi.2 137,258 

XVI.  3,  5  ...  .305,  306,  313 

xvi.  .5,  9 318 

xvi.  8,  eq 159 

xvi.  8 311 

xvi.  10 311,  315 

.xvi.  12 312 

xvi.  13,  sq 2.58 

xvi.  15 318 

xvi.  16..310,  312,  314,  ;j48 

xvi.  17 312 

xvi.  18 314 

xvi.  21.. 276,  310,  312.  314 

xvi.21,sq 314 

xvi.  2:j 310,  313 

xvi.  24 28.5,  315 

xvi.  2(^32 310 

xvi.  27,  28..  280,  306,  312 

xvi.  29 293 

xvi.  29-31 313 

-xvi.  30,34..... 310 

.xvi.  31,  32 213,327 

xvii.  1,  sq 251 

.wii.  .3,  sq 251 

xvii.  5 356 

xvii.  7 68,309 

xvii.  8 286 

xvii.  11 1.52,277,317 

xvii.  14 1.52,277 

xviii.  2,  sq 74,  186 

xviii.  3 228 

xviii.  6-18 228 

xviii.  17 229 

xviii.  18....  146,227,229 

xviii.  21 267 

xviii.  24 228 

xi.x.  2 106,  182,  186 

xix.  4 101,  104 

xix.  6,  7 179,291,:»9 

xix.  11 .319 

xix.  12 189,  '^19 

.xi.x.  14-10 319 

-xix.  15 222 

xix.  17,  sq 18:3 

xix.  18.  19 182,220 

-xix.  20-22 230,  302 

xix.  26 140 

.xix.  28 273 

xix.  29 2.30 

xix.  31 140,  171 

xix.  32 188,190 

XX 222 

XX.  2 267 

XX.  4-6 222 

XX.  5,  6 171,456 

XX.  7 182 

XX.  8,  9 106,232 

.X.X.  10 230,2.32 

XX.  11-14 22.S 

XX.  11-21 228  I 

XX.  12 229 

XX.  14 229  ' 

XX.  17,  19 228,229  I 

XX.  23 74,228  1 

XX.  :;M-26...83,  107.  110,  1 

179,  269 

.XX.  27 140,  171  I 

x.xi 208  I 

xxi.  1,  sq 210 

xxi.  4 213  I 


I  LEVITICUS.       lACER 

xxi.  6 272 

xxi.  7,  eq 210 

xxi.  8  106,272 

xxi.  10 216,  21(6 

xxi.  10-15  217 

xxi.  11,  12 217,295 

xxi.  It;- 24 209 

xxi.  17 272 

xxi.  22 306 

xxii.  2 210 

xxii.  11,  12 245,  291 

xxii.  18,  21 288 

xxii.  19 309 

xxii.  21-24 269 

xxii.  23 288,  ;W.» 

xxii.  25,  27 269,  272 

xxii.  29,  eq 291 

x.xiii :K4,  .327 

xxiii.  2,  3,4 324,  :i27 

xxiii.5,  sq 345 

xxiii.  6-8   346 

x.xiii.  7,  8 327 

xxiii.  11, 15.. 227, 346.  350 

xxiii.  17 270,351 

xxiii.  18,  25  .  .286,  3i:i,351 

x.xiii.  21, 327 

xxiii.  27,29 293,  313 

x.\iii.28,  31 :J27 

xxiii.  35,  36  ... .  32:3,  327, 
351,352 

.xxiii.  37 2»i 

xxiii.  42,  sq 326,  351 

.xxiv.  7 263,271,  283 

xxiv  8 256,335 

x.xiv.  10 180 

xxiv.  11 92,94.  220 

xxiv.  16 92,  94 

xj  iv.  17 245 

xxiv.  18 222 

XXV 324 

XXV.  1-7 337 

XXV.  2 338,342,344 

XXV.  4 3;J7 

XXV.  5 296 

XXV.  8,  10 338,  :m 

XXV.  9 .337.  339 

XXV.  11 296,339,  :J41 

XXV.  20,  sq SiH,  310 

XXV. 21,  eq ;M2 

XXV.  23 235,  &39 

XXV.  ;;3-27 2:35 

XXV.  32,  sq 208 

XXV.  39 241,343,339 

XXV.  39-13 242 

XXV.  39-47 240 

XXV.  39-55 2^11 

XXV.  42 181,. 342 

XXV.  42-55 239,240 

XXV.  44,  sq 240 

XXV.  47-55 242 

x.xv.  55 181,  2.39 

xxvi 79.363,  492 

.xxvi.l 101 

xxvi.  1-11 1% 

xxvi.  .3,  sq 196,  552 

-xxvi.  13 181,  239 

xxvi.  14-:J9 197 

xxvi.  3:5.  sq 195,  197 

x.xvi.  :i4    342 

xxvi.  85 343 

xxvi.  39 163 

xxvi.  41 194 

xxvi.  44 197,492 

xxvii.  1-8 28.3 

xxvii.  1-25 292 

xxvii.  9 268 

xxvii.  11 268 

xxvii.  28 267 

x.\rii.32 800 

xxvii.  38 292 

x^viii.  26,  sq 298 


NUUBEES.         I'AUEs 

i.  2 225 

i. 5.6. 10 113 

i.  16 228 

i.  17 W 

i.  18 225 

i.44 223 

i.  60 206 

i.53 204 

ii.  17,  sq 385 

iii.  3 213 

iii.  9 204 

iii.  11,  eq 203 

iii.  24,25 206,  225 

iii.  28 200 

iii.  30,  35 225 

iii.  38 212 

lii.4:j,46 205 

iv.  3 206 

iv.  5,  sq 2M 

iv.  7,  11 256,318 

iv.  17,  sq 207 

iv.  18 226 

iv.  30 206 

V.  2,  sq 168 

V.  5-10 301 

V.  7 248,  302 

V.  8 280 

V  9  291 

v!  11-31  .....'.'.'.'.230,320 

V.  11   222 

V.  15  267,  273,  320 

V.  19,  sq 219 

V.22 249 

vi   295 

vi.  1-21 294 

vi.2-5 294 

vi.  5 292 

vi.7,  9 286,296 

vl.  11 296 

vi.  12-16 28«),  287, 

:}02,  304 

vi.  14 306 

vi.  IS.sq 283 

vi.20 290 

vi.24    ..   248 

vi.  25,  eq....  128,  257,  290 

vi.27 246 

vii.  2    228 

vii.3.  sq 262 

vii.  16. 17.... 269. 289,  306 

vii.  28,  eq 302 

vii.  89 254 

viii.  5-22 206 

viii.  8 805 

viii.  10  274 

viii.  16 20:1 

viii.  19 204,227,292 

viii.  24 206 

ix.7 :M8 

ix.l3 325,  :J^18 

X.8 213 

X.  9,  eq 336 

X.  10 213,327 

X.  21,  24 :«5 

X.  .35 200 

xi.4 180,244 

xi.  5... 68 

xi.  11 216 

xi.l6.eq...  180.221,  223 

xi.  17,  eq 141 

xi.25,  eq....l41,  142,  364 
xi.29 141,142,  363, 

5(18 

xii.  1 227 

xii.  2 .364 

xii.  6-8 79.  142. 

363,  478 

xii.  r 181 

xii.  8 111,142.  U3 

.541 
xia.  2,  eq 223 


584 


Textual  i]srD"EX. 


NUMBERS.         PAGES 

xiii.  1.3 446 

xiii.  16 75 

xiv 75 

xiv.  14 128 

xiv.  17 101 

xiv.  18 160,  162 

xiv.  21,  28 101,  121, 

496 

xiv.24 181 

xiv.  33 456 

XV 273 

XV.  3 284 

XV.  8,  sq 285 

XV.  19,  sq 291 

XV.  ai 306,308 

XV.  27 269 

XV.  30  164.  301 

XV.  32 330,  334 

XV.  33 220,221 

XV.  35 220,334 

XV.  36 222 

XV.38,  sq 182 

xvi.  2 201,  223 

xvi.  3,  7 200,201 

xvi.  9,  10 204,205 

xvi.  22 99,  119 

xvi.  29 107 

xvi.  26 256 

xvi.  30 139,  170,  173 

xvii.  4 252 

xvii.  11 256,277,280 

xvii.  16-24 257 

xvii.  17 225 

xvii.  21 .....298 

xvii.  25 254 

xviii.  1 209 

xviii.  5     206 

xviii.  6,  7....  204, 206,  406 

xviii.  8 212 

xviii.  11,  sq 291 

xviii.  12 298 

xviii.  15,  17 298 

xviii.  16 232 

xviii.  19 271 

xviii.  20 212,  214 

xviii.  21 300 

xviii.  22,  sq 204 

xviii.  23,  30 207 

xix 168 

xix.  7,  10 308 

xix.  9,17  319 

xix.  11,  sq 294 

xix.  13,20 222 

XX.  10,12 76,  77 

XX.  14 76 

XX.  24,  26....  170, 215,  217 

xs.  28 215,  357 

xxi.  4 76,  151 

xxi.  8,  9 78,447 

xxi.  14 200,  4.38 

xxii.  22 448 

xxii.  31,  38 1.32,  141 

xxiii.  9 S3,  179 

xxiii.  10 172,  173 

xxiii.  19,21 113,200 

xxiii.  23 219 

xxiii.  32 286 

xxiv.  2 141 

xxiv.  4,  15...91,  466,  476, 

479 

xxiv.  16 89,476 

xxiv.  17-19... 76,  78,  224, 

522 

XXV.  3 114 

XXV.  6-13 75 

XXV.  11 74 

XXV.  13 278 

XXV.  44 2U 

xsvi 77,  226 

xxvi.  29 72 

xxvi.  41 154 


NUMBERS.        PAGES 

xxvi.  55 122,219 

xxvii.  2 220 

xxvli.  3 167 

xxvii.  8-11 234 

xxvii.  16 99,  223 

xxvii.  18 141 

xxvii.  21 218 

xxviii 3a4,  326 

xsviii.  2 324 

xxviii.  3,8 269,285 

xxviii.  9...   286,335 

xxviii.  11 269,336 

xxviii.  15,  22....  306,  310 

xxviii.  16,  25 345 

xxviii.  18 327 

xxviii.  19,  24 346 

xxviii.  27,  sq 351 

xxviii.  30 306 

xxix 324,  .326 

xxix.  5,  7 306,  .327 

xxix.  12-34 351 

xxix.  35 352 

XXX.  3 292,  293 

XXX.  4-10 226 

XXX.  14 293 

xxxi 79 

xxxi.  14 220 

xxxi.  16 77,244 

xxxi.  41,  sq 291 

xxxi.  50 262 

xxxii 68,  77 

xxxii.  12 181 

xxxii.  13 75 

xsxiii 74 

xxxili.  4 70 

xxxiii.  19,  sq 76 

xxxiv.  1,  sq . .  .77 

xxxiv.  17 80 

xxxiv.  18,  sq 223 

XXXV.  6,7 207 

XXXV.  9-34 237 

XXXV.  12 237 

XXXV.  16 245 

XXXV.  19 237 

XXXV.  22,  sq 164 

XXXV.  23,  24 237 

XXXV.  27 237 

XXXV.  28 214,2.37 

XXXV.  30 221 

XXXV.  31 238,278 

XXXV.  33...  237,238,2.39, 
278 

xxxvi.  1 226 

xxxvi.  11 234 

DEUTERONOMY. 

5  46 

.7 77 

.  12,  sq 220 

.  13,  15 220 

16,  sq 222 

.  17 219,220 

.32 4.59 

.37 76 

.39 156 

.46 76 

i.  30 123 

it.  24 101,  139 

ii.  25 83 

v.  1 196 

V.  3 489 

V.  6 539 

iv.  6-8 18,184 

) 233 

V.  12,13 139,184 

V.  15,  19...  Ill,  112,  186, 
190,  410 

iv.  20 179 

iv.  29 153,460 

iv.  37 66,128,  130 

iv.  39 137 


DEUTERONOMY. 

PAGES 

iv.  41,  sq 237 

iv.  42 800 

V.  6-10 185 

V.  8,  9 111,162 

V.  12 248,3^,328 

V.  14 240 

V.  15 333 

V.  18 187 

V.  20 223 

V.  23 100,  101 

V.  26 184 

V.  28,  29 162,458 

vi.  2 232 

vi.  4 6,30 

vi.  5,6 153,183,  233 

vi.  7 555 

vi.  13 248 

vi.  15 114 

vi.  20,  sq 233 

vii.  3 227 

vii.  6,  7 177,179,498 

vii.  9 95,197 

viii.  sq 492 

viii.  1 196 

viii.  2,  gq  122, 133 

viii.  2-5 73 

viii.  5 153,  181 

viii.  7-9 83 

viii.  17 177 

ix.  4-6 177 

ix.  23 459 

ix.  26 101 

X.  4 184 

X.  6 357 

X.  8,  9 203,207,214 

X.  14 112 

X.  16 154,  183,194 

X.  17,  19 102,240 

X.  20,  22 84,248 

xi.  9 196 

xi.  10 68 

xi.  19 233 

xii 251 

xii.  5 125 

xii.  5,11 137,250 

xii.  6 288,  298 

xii.  8 251,  356 

xii.  12,15 245,251 

xii.  17,  sq 298 

xii.  18 245,291 

xii.  19 209 

xii.  23 152 

xii.  31 267 

xiii.  2,  sq.... 139,  140,478 

xiii.  2-.5,  6 143,362 

xiii.  3 64,  123 

xiii.  6 220,  222 

xiii.  16 293 

xiii.  17 286 

xiv 208 

xiv.  1 13.5,179,  293 

xiv.  22,  sq...S47,  248,  298 

xiv.  23 2,50 

xiv.  27,  29  207,  338 

XV.  1-11 338 

XV.  1 341 

XV.  4 236,343 

XV.  5 338 

XV.  7-10 338 

XV.  9 338 

XV.  12 242,343 

XV.  12-18 241,341 

XV.  15 240 

XV.  17 242 

XV.  19,  sq 298,346 

XV.  21,22 251,298 

xvi 324 

xvi.  1,2..-. .345,346 

xvi.  3  346,349 

xvi.  5-7 324,  345 


DEUTERONOMY. 

PAGES 

xvi.  6,  8 285,  346 

xvi.  10 288 

xvi.  11.233,240,291,324, 
351,  533 

xvi.  11-14 245 

xvi.  14,  15  2.33,324 

xvi.  16.. 233,  264,314,  317 

xvi.  17 221,  272,  327 

xvii.  3 440 

xvii.  6,  7 220,  221 

xvii.  8,  sq 220,  404 

xvii.  9,  sq 204,  2U 

xvii.  12 205,214 

xvii.  14-20 224 

xvii.  15 373 

xvii.  16 22-4 

xvii.  18,  sq 204,  309 

xviii.  1,  sq 214 

xviii.  3-5 204 

xviii.  5 125,205,209 

xviii.  6-8 204,  358 

xviii.  7,  9....  140,  205,  207 

xviii.  9-22 362,484 

xviii.  11 171 

xviii.  15-19 171,522 

xviii.  18...    .127,  362,466 

xviii.  19,  sq 219 

xviii.  22 486 

xix.  1-13 237 

xix.  8 322 

xix.  12 220,237,  322 

xix.  17 219,  221 

xix.  19,21 221,222 

XX.  5,8,9 221 

XX.  10 81 

XX   11   244 

XX.  15,  16 81,  149 

XX.  16-19 1244 

xxi.  1-9 279,  322 

.xxi.  2 220 

xxi.  5 204,205 

xxi.  8 278 

xxi.  10 245 

xxi.  15  148 

xxi.  15-17 234 

xxi.  18 219,  223,  233 

xxi.  19 220 

xxi  20 245 

xxi.  21,23 220,308 

xxii   12 182 

xxii.  15 220 

xxii.  16,  18 221,222 

xxii.  19 231 

xxii.  22 230,232 

xxii.  29 227 

xxiii.  2 l';9,  293,  517 

xxiii.  4 180,516,  519 

xxiii.  18 230,  292,  294 

xxiii.  22 287 

xxiii.  22-24 293 

xxiii.  25,  sq .344 

xxiv 231 

xxiv.  1,  sq 231,  2.32 

xxiv.  3,  sq 231 

xxiv.  3 .506 

x.xiv.  10,  12 241 

xxiv.  14 340 

xxiv.  16 163,238 

xxiv.  18-22    240 

XXV.  2,  sq 222 

XXV.  5-10 234 

XXV.  7,  8 220 

XXV.  18 341 

xxvi.  1,2 298 

xxvi.  8 334 

xx-vi.  12,13,299,300,  341 

xxvi.  26 183 

xxvii.  4-8 82 

xxvii.  20,22 228 

xxvii.  23,  sq 328 


TEXTUAL  INDEX. 


585 


DEUTERONOMY. 

rxoES 
xxviii.-xxx. .  79,  303,  414 

xxviii.  1,  sq ige 

xxviii.  9,  gq 516 

xxviii.  ]0 l^'6 

xxviii.  15,  gq 19" 

xxviii.  58 92,  1^6 

xxix.  10,  11 ^44,378 

xxix.  13 349 

xxix.  25 Ill,  112 

XXX.  1,  sq  198 

XXX.  1-6 4!fcJ 

XXX.  2 507 

XXX.  6.  ..19,21,  194,4.57. 
4,58 

XXX.  11-20 164,  184 

XXX.  15,  sq 1.58,  19(i 

XXX.  20 196 

xxxi.  2,  3 .338 

xxxi.  9 204,  207 

xxxi.  10 3;}8,  .341 

xxxi.  11 137,  247 

xxxi.  10-13.. 227,  233,  138 

xxxi.  10,  sq 172,  184 

xxxi.  17 114 

xxxi.  19,  sq 2;J4 

xxxi.  25 207 

xxxi.  26 254,  258,  455 

xxxi.  29 489 

xxxii.  . .  .79,  184,  234,  363 

xxxii.  4 112,  113 

xxxii.  5 135 

xxxii.  6,  8 58,  178 

xxxii.  8.. 89, 121,148,  448 

xxxii.  13,  sq  227 

xx.xii.  17,  18 105,  117 

xxxii.  21,  sq 114,  115, 

170,  195 

xxxii.  27 505 

xxxii.  36,  sq 115,  198 

xxxii.  39...  112,  197,  512 

xxxii.  40 100,  101 

xxxii.  42 297 

xxxii.  46 2.33 

xxxii.  50 80 

xxxiii 202 

xxxiii.  2 442,  444 

xxxiii.5 73,  199 

xxxiii.  8 66,205 

xxxiii.  9,  eq 74,  202 

xxxiii.  10..  209,  216,  ai8, 
285 

xxxiii.  16 297 

xxxiii.  19 4.52 

xxxiii.  27-29 196 

xxxiii.  28 83,  179 

xxxiv.  5  79, 173 

xxxiv.  5-7 80 

xxxiv.  9 141 

xxxiv.  10 363 


JOSHUA. 

i.  1-9 

i.  2-7  

i.4 

iii.  3. 


81 

ISl 

77 

204 
iii.  10.  13....'..'..10l',  11)2 

iv.  2-13 81 

iv.  13,  14 81 

iv.  22-24 81 

V.  4,  sq 193 

V.  6 75 

v.  10 355 

v.u ai" 

V.  14,  sq....l20,  122,  440 

vi.2 81,  i:50 

vi.  5,  6 207,  .3:« 

vii 278 

vii.8 103 

vii.  14,  sq...  122,  219,  225 
viii 81 


JOSHUA.  PAOEs 

viii.  30-35 82 

viii.  33 221 

ix 361 

ix.  19 249 

ix.  27 376 

X.  1-3 63 

X.  12,  eq 440 

X.  40 149 

xi.  11-14 149 

xi.  lfi-23 Hi 

xi.20 81,165 

xii.  7,  sq m 

xiil.  2,  sq 8:3,  84 

xiii-xxii 84 

xiv.  1....  80,  &1,  219,  357 

xiv.2 122 

xiv.  8 181 

xiv.  10 m 

XV.  18 227 

xvi,  10 3.57 

xvii.  4 80 

xviii 85 

xviii.  1 83,  84,  3.56 

xviii.  4-9 Si 

xix 79,  202 

xix.  1-9 365 

xix.  40  386 

xix.  51 80,  356 

XX 2.52 

XX.  4 2.37 

xxi.  4,  10 207,  212 

xxi.  11,  12 208 

xxi.  14,  16 207,  208 

xxi.  21,  34 357 

xxii.  5 183 

xxii.  14 235 

xxii.  19 77 

xxii.  22,  23 87,  219 

xxiii 84 

xxiii.  11 18;i 

xxiii.  15 81 

xxiv 84  1 

xxiv.  2 58  t 

xxiv.  14 68,  525 

xxiv.  15  175,  349 

xxiv.  19 88,  114 

xxiv.  2:3 84 

xxiv.  31 84,  353 

JUDGES. 


JUDGES.  TAflEB 

vi.  32 1)60 

vi.  34 141,  142 

vii.  2 3.54 


vii.  13 

vii.  22 

viii.  1 

viii.  2,3 

viii.  .5,  20 


23. 


Vlll. 

viii. 

viii.  27 

viii.  33 

ix 

ix.  4. 


. . .  224 


ix.  8,  15  

ix.  16 

ix.  21 

ix.  22 

ix.  46 

xi.  7 

xi.  10 

xi.  24 103 

xi.  28-40 

xi.  29 

xi.  39  

-xii.  1 

xiii.  4 


354 
..81 
.244 

244 
.357 


i-iu 

i.  1 

i.  28 

i.  30 

i.85 

ii.  1 35.3,364 

ii.  1-5 131 

ii.  6 .'ttS 

ii.  7 8^1 

ii.  16-19 .354  I 

ii.  16,18 .362  ' 

ii.  22 122 

iii.  6 .3.53 

iii.  9.  15 302 

iii.  31 3:i 

iv.  3 354 

iv.4 364 

iv.  5 .3.54 

iv.  6,14 304 

v.. 355 

V.  4 855,  :»8 

V.6 5.52 

v.  15-17  364,  .355 

V.  20 4.39 

Vi.  11,14,22 1.31 

vi.  12,  eq 359 

vi.  15 .3M 

vi.  18 .356 

vi.  19 132 

vi.  21  282 

vi.  34 360 


xiii.  16 

-xiii.  18,  25... 132, 141, 

xiv.  6,  19 

xiv.  12 

XV.  19 

xvi.  13 

xvii , 

xvii.  5 213, 

xvii.  6 

xvii.  7 357, 

xviii.  14,  17 359, 

xviii.  30 

xviii.  31 

xix-xxi 

xix.  1 

xix.  5 . . 

xix.  18 357, 

xix.  29 

XX.  12 

XX.  10 

XX.  26,27 

XX.  26 287, 

XX.  38 

XX.  27.  sq 218, 

xxi.  .3,  4,  6,    ....856, 

xxi.  5-10 

xxi.  17 

xxi.  19 355, 

xxi.  19-21 

xxi.  21    

KUTH. 

i.  20,  sq 

ii.  4 

iv.  ii  .... 


.  143 
.  503 
.  368 
.  355 
.368 
368 
,869 
.3.56 
.  359 
.361 
..3.^9 
,369 
368 
..369 
.368 
.359 
.364 
.249 
,  105 
859 
.141 
.360 
368 
394 
356 
,142 
142 
541 
150 
297 
.357 
:K9 
.356 
362 
387 
357 
356 
,3.53 
a57 
153 
359 
175 
326 
160 
356 
.3.56 
357 
3.53 
509 
360 
201 
.356 
834 
250 


91 

94 

870 


1  SAMUEL. 

i.  sq a56 

i.  3 856,438 

i.6 148 

i.  n     2(»2,  294,  4:J8 

i.  13 294 

i.20,  22 196,  201 

i.  38 ?3.  204 

ii.  2 106 

ii.  6 512 

ii.  12 .'356 

ii.  13-17 .3.57 

ii.  15 377 

ii.  18 3.59 

ii.  32....  84,  292,  297,360 

ii.  37 213.  364 

ii.  38 207,  2!>2 

iii.  1,  10 364,481 


1  SAMUEL.  PAUEB 

iii.  4 129 

iii.  14 818 

iv 301 

iv.  4 2.54,438 

iv.  8 89 

iv.  21 195 

VI.  3,  sq 303,  30J 

vi.  4 409 

vi   6 164,  165 

vi.  9,  13 122,  208 

vi.  15 3.58 

vi.  20 107 

vii.  6 393 

vii.  9.  gq 261 

vii.  10 140 

vii.  16 .355 

viii.  2 .355 

viii.  5,  11 -.HiT.,  369 

viii.  20 368 

ix.  6 100,  485,  480 

ix.  8 .394 

ix.  9 364,  475,486 

ix.  13 361 

ix.  22 368 

x.  1 369 

x.1-9 369 

X.  3 361 

X.  5-12 .365 

X.  6 141,  36.3,  482 

X.  6-9 369,  467,  474 

X.  8 370 

X.  Ii 360 

X.  19-21 226 

X.  20 219,  369 

X.  25 224 

xi.  7 17.5,  369 

xi.  15-21 .361,  .369 

xii.  3 278 

xii.  11 .360 

-xiii.  8-14    370 

.\iii.  9 287 

xiii.  19-22 361 

xiv.  18 362 

xiv.  24 249 

xiv.  41.  sq 122,  219 

xiv.  41-3 219 

xiv.  52 370 

XV.  2 4;i8 

XV.  11 .370 

.XV.  21 861 

XV.  22,  sq. . .  370,  876,  4.52 

XV.  27 393 

-w.  39 113 

XV.  29-35 115 

XV.  33 267 

xvi.  1 .",70 

.\vi.  3.5 274,  ;368 

xvi.  7 :j69 

xvi.  13 141,  ;369 

.xvi.  14-38... 141.  142,448 

.xvi.  15,23 448 

xvii.  45 4.38 

xviii.  10 141 

xviii.  25 227 

xi.x.  18 367 

xix.  19,  sq 36.5,  a;7 

xix.  34 4?J,  474 

.\x.  4 155 

XX.  5,  sq 836 

XX.  23 554 

xxi.  1-10 361 

xxii.  5 367,  .370 

xxii.  10 .375 

xxii.  17,  8q 8»il 

xxii.  18 213 

xxiii.  9,  sq 218 

xxiii.  25 531 

xxiv.  7 309 

XXV.  44 2:31 

xxvl.  9    3<}9 

xxviii 171 


586 


TEXTUAL  INDEX. 


1  SAMUEL.        PAGES 

xxviii.  3 171 

xxviii.  6...  142,  144,486 

xxviii.  9 370 

xxviii.  13 89 

xxviii.  15 171 

x.xix.  9 129 

XXX.  7,  sq 218 

XXX.  17 286 

2  SAMUEL. 

i.  18 234 

ii.  4 369 

iii.  14 231 

iii.  35 249 

V.  2 371,  373 

V.  3 369 

vi 372 

vi.  2 99,  254 

vi.  17,  18 372,374 

vii 523 

vii.  5-7 381 

vii.  6 358 

vii.  8,  18 369,  438 

vii.  14 199,  374 

vii.  16 373 

vii.  23 89,  90 

vii.  25 523 

vii.  26 438 

viii.  11 375 

viii.  16,  17 374,  377 

viii.  18 213 

ix.  23 369 

xi.  11 356 

xi.  21 360 

xii 371 

xii.  13 463,493 

xii.  25 378 

xiii.  13 238 

xiv.  6-11 238 

XV.  24,  34 208,  356 

xvi.  11 123 

xix.  11 369 

xix.  41-43 385 

XX  1,  sq 385 

XX.  23,  24...  213,  244,  374 

XX.  25 375 

xxi.  1  376 

xxi.  3 280 

xxi.9 267 

xxiii 524 

xxiii.  1,  5 373 

xxiii.  2 372 

xxiv 123,371,409 

xxiv.  1  448 

xxiv.  11 374 

xxiv.  15 451 

xxiv.  18 252,  378 

xxiv.  24 263 

xxiv.  25 387,357 

1  KINGS. 

i.  16 402 

i.  39 369 

ii.4 196 

ii.  10 172 

ii.  19 402 

ii.  25 213 

ii.  27 382 

ii.  37  166 

iii. 2 252 

iii.  4 374 

iii. 5 143 

iii.  12 537,539 

iii.  13,  sq 383 

iv.  2,  sq 374 

iv.  25 378 

iv.  28 382 

iv.  31 383 

iv.  33 382 

v.  5 378 

v.  9 153 


1  KINGS.  PAGES 

V.  12,  sq 153,382 

V.  19 523 

vi.  2 378,380 

vi.  4 379 

vi.  21 380 

vi.  29 259 

vi.  31 380 

vi.  36 379 

vii.  13,  sq 381 

vii.  15  379 

vii.  19,23 379 

vii.  29 259 

viii 128,  381 

viii.  2 334,  381 

viii.  3,  sq  207,208 

viii.  4 84,381 

viii.  11 110,  128 

viii.  13, 13..  137,  255,  257, 
379 

viii.  14 374 

viii.  20 378 

viii.  27,29 128 

viii.  30 137 

viii.  31,  eq..  221,  249,  250 

viii.  32,  35 137 

viii.  38 137 

viii.  39,  43 137 

viii.  41 382 

viii.  42 136 

viii.  46  165 

viii.  55 374 

viii.  62,  sq 374 

viii.  65 ...  317,  381 

viii.  66 381 

ix.  3 250 

ix.  15,  sq 384 

ix.  20 244 

ix.  25 374,382 

ix.26 384 

X.  1 383,  541 

X.  5  150,  182 

X.  11,  12 384 

xi.  4,  sq 384 

xi.  1.3,  32 384,385 

xi.  27,  29 384 

xi.  36 385 

xi.39 386,  523 

xii.  21,  22 385 

xii.  23 386 

xii.  28 89,388 

xii.  31,32 388 

xiii.  11,  sq 388 

xiii.  16,  sq 394 

xiii.  20,  sq 394 

xiii.  33 388 

xiii.  38 282 

xiv.  1,  sq 485 

xiv.  3 394 

xiv.  6,7 388,486 

xiv.  16 486 

xiv.  17 387 

xiv.  21 402 

xiv.  25,  sq  403 

XV.  2,  13 402 

XV.  17,21 38.5,387 

xvi.  1,7 388,394 

xvi.  22 387 

xvi.  24 390 

xvi.  28 172 

xvi.  33 390 

xvii.  21,  sq..  169,  171,  173 

xvii.  24 100 

xviii.  19 390,  .391 

xviii.  21,  22 390 

xvili.  46 390 

xix.  3 385 

xix.  4,  14 1.50,  .389 

xix.  11,  sq 129 

xix.  16 3:13 

xix.  18 507 

xix.  19 393 


1  KINGS.  PASES 

XX.  13,  28 391 

XX.  .34 390 

XX.  35 392,  394 

XX.  38,  41 394 

xxi 220 

xxi.  1 390 

xxi.  3 235,343 

xxi.  5 151 

xxi.  21-29 393 

xxi.  28,  sq 413,492 

xxii  391,  393 

xxii.  7,24 391 

xxii.  19 441,449 

xxii.  21 142 

xxii.  28 407 

2  KINGS. 

i.  3 485 

i.  7 392 

ii.  3-5 392 

ii.  9,  10 142,  393 

ii.  15 394 

ii.  7,  16,  sq 392 

ii.25 392 

iii.  15 366,475 

iv.  1 241 

iv.  8,  sq 393 

iv.  23 335,393 

iv.  25 392 

iv.  34,  sq....l69, 171,  173 

iv.  38,  sq 393 

iv.  43 393 

iv.  43 391 

V.  7 319 

V.  9 392 

V.  20-27  394 

V.  26 155,394 

vi.  1,  sq 393 

vi.  16 442 

vi.  32 392 

viii.  18 404 

ix 393 

ix.  4 392,394 

ix.  11 393,473 

ix.  12 369 

ix.  15 390 

X.  11,13 390,402 

X.  15,  23 393 

X.  20 352 

X.  30 395 

xi 404 

xi.4-12 406 

xi.  12 369 

xi.  18 404,406 

xii.  3 402 

xii.  5 299 

xiii.  6 395 

xiii.  14,  sq 395 

xiv.  6 163,  238 

xiv.  8-14 405 

xiv.  25 395 

XV.  3,  34 405 

XV.  10 398 

XV.  13,  sq .396 

XV.  19 396 

XV.  29 397 

xvi.  3,  sq 408 

xvi.  3 413 

xvi.  5,  sq 410 

xvi.  6,  7 408 

xvi.  10 410,413 

xvii.  2 397 

xvii.  3 398 

xvii.  7-23 398 

xvii.  16 413 

xvii.  24,  25 399 

xvii.  29 236 

xvii.  31 413 

xviii 409 

xviii  4 78,  410 

xviii.  5-9 393,  413 


2  KINGS.  PAGES 

xviii.  13,  sq 409 

xviii.  17,  ssq 409 

xix.  8,  sq 411 

xix.  9 409 

xix.  35,  sq 412 

XX 412 

XX.  12,  sq 410 

xxi.  3,  7 412 

xxi.  5 379,413 

xxi.  10,  16 413 

xxii 415 

xxii.  3 415 

xxii.  11,  12 414,421 

xxii.  14 401 

xxii.  20 513 

xxiii.  4 511 

xxiii.  5 413 

xxiii.  8 413 

xxiii.  10 413 

xxiii.  11 381,413 

xxiii.  12 413 

xxiii.  13 384,  410 

xxiii.  22 47,  415 

xxiii.  26 413 

xxiii.  29 417 

xxiii.  80,  31,  364,  402,  417 

xxiii.  34 97 

xxiv.  1  418 

xxiv.  3  413 

xxiv.  7 417 

xxiv.  8-17 418 

xxiv.  10-16... 421 

xxiv.  17 97 

XXV  1-7 420,423 

XXV.  3 423 

XXV.  8 420 

X.XV.  16 379 

XXV.  18 217 

XXV.  25 421,423 

XXV.  27,  eq 425 

1  CHRONICLES. 

ii.34 245 

ii.  53 85 

ii.  55 393 

iii.  19 426 

iii.  24 195 

iv.  14 85 

iv.  28-32 84 

iv.  36 195 

v.  2 66,234 

V.  26 398 

V.29 357 

vi.  7 363 

vi.  9 439 

vi.  13,  18 362 

vi.  16 375 

vi.  34 207 

vi.  35 357 

vi.  39 212 

vi.  39-66 84 

vi.  46 208 

vii.  7,  40 225 

vii.  8 195 

vii.  11 226 

vii.  22 72 

viii.  10 226 

ix.  2.  14 376,377 

ix.  19 , 376 

X.  13 172 

xii.  6,  9 362 

xii.  18 ....142 

xiii.  2 375 

xiii.  3 361 

XV 375 

XV.  16 375 

XV.  17 383 

XV.  18-23 362 

xvi.  37 376 

xvi.  .39 375 

xvii.  7,  21  439 


TEXTUAL   INDEX. 


587 


1  CHRONICLES. 

PAGES 

xvii.  9,11 523 

xvii.  14 372 

xviii.  16 377 

xxi 371 

xxi.  1 448,  449 

xxi.  9 374 

xxi.  15 451 

xxi.  2;} 85 

xxi.  26 282 

xxii 375 

xxii.  8 372 

xxiii.  4  221 

xxiii.  11 226 

xxiii.  25 376,  377 

xxiv.  3,6 377 

XXV.  2,  5 367 

xxvi.  29 376 

xxvii.  5 213 

xxvii.  32 374 

xxviii.  2 267 

xxviii.  3 372 

xxviii.  5 372 

xxviii.  9 162 

xxviii.  18 259 

xxviii.  19  380 

xxix.  5 213 

xxix.  10 374 

xxix.  23 372 

xxix.  29 367 

2  CHRONICLES. 

i.  6 374 

ii.  7 244 

ii.  13 381 

ii.  45 380 

ill.  2,9  378 

iu.4,14 379,  80 

iv.  8 380 

iv.9 379 

V.3 381 

vii.  1 282 

vii.8 SU 

vii.  9 317 

vii.  9,  10 381 

vii.  16 250 

viii.  7 241 

%nii.  13 324 

viii.  14 375,376 

X.  23 384 

xi.  2,  3 384 

xi.  10 386 

xi.  13 388 

xi.21 402 

xii.  5 404 

xiii 4a3 

xiii.  5 271 

xiii.  9 388,389 

xiii.  12 213 

xiii.  14 :«6 

xiv.  7 384 

XV.  1 403 

XV.9 384.386 

xvi.7  403 

xvii.  7-9 403 

xis.  2  404 

xix.  5-11 403,404 

xix.  34 410 

XX 504 

XX.  14 404 

XX.  20 459,460 

XX.  5CJ 503 

XX.  34 367 

XX.  37 401 

xxi.  2,  4,  11 404 

xxi.  3 402 

xxi.  4 405 

xxi.  8-10 .VV4 

xxi.  17 377,404 

xxu.  1 404 


!  2  CHRONICLES. 

I  rAOBS 

xxiii 404 

xxiii.  1,  11,  18 406 

xxiv.  1 418 

xxiv.  t>-ll 299 


xxiv.  20 

.142 

xxiv.  22 

?'19 

XXV 

406 

xxv.  17 

405 

xxvi.  4 

■375 

xxvi.  5 

406 

xxvi.  22 

.368 

xxviii.  2,  sq.. 

408 

xxviii.  5  8q... 
xxviii.  9-lB. . . 

..408 

410 

398 

xxviii.  11 

378 

xxviii.  17 

..  408 

410 

xxviii.  18 

.;i% 

xxviii.  23 

.408 

xxix  

410 

xxix.  23-34 275,  276 

xxix.  2.') 375 

xxix.  27 286 

xxix.  30 367,412 

xxix.  31 213 

xxix.-xxxii 409,  410 

XXX 399,  410 

XXX.  2 325 

XXX.  16 346 

XXX.  30 47,  342 

xxxi 411 

xxxi.  2 376 

xxxi.  3 324 

xxxii 410 

xxxii.  3-6 411 

xxxii.  11 412 

xxxii.  '£i  412 

xxxii.  31 123 

xxxii.  32 367 

xxxiii.  6 413 

xxxiii.  11 412 

xxxiv 414,  415 

xxxiv.  9 399 

XXXV.  4,  6q 375 

xxv.  7-9 346,347 

XXXV.  11,  12 346 

XXXV.  15 367 

XXXV.  18 47,  .342 

XXXV.  21 416 

XXXV.  20-25 417 

XXXV.  27 415 

xxxvi.  1-4 417 

xxxvi.6,  7 418,  419 

xxxvi.  9,  8q 419 

xxxvi.  13,   ......164,  419 

xxxvi.  14 375 

xxxvi.  21 47,342,422 

xxxvi.  22,  sq 424 

EZRA. 


1 434 

2 426 

4,  7 424 

8 425 

.2 426 

.43,58 376 

.59 426 

.62 212 

.63 435 

.64 314,  425 

.68,  sq 425 

.70 433 

ii.2 425,426 

ii.3-10 425 

ii.6 425 

ii.  7-9 425 

ii.  8 377 

V.  1-5 426 

v.2.9 399 

V.5 427 


EZRA.  PAOES 

iv.  6 438 

iv.  6-23 427 

iv.  7,  sq 4.W 

iv.  7-33 129 

iv.  27,  29... 399 

V.  1 427,  428 

V.  41 425 

vi.  4,  8 424 

vi.  9 272 

vi.  14 428 

vi.  17 42;j 

vi.20 :J.16 

vi.  21 426 

vii 428 

vii.  1,  sq 357 

vii.  5 217 

vii.  6, 10 4;J4 

vii.  7 429 

vii.  11 429 

vii.  17,  23 372 

vii.  24 376 

vii.  14,  25 433,435 

viii 429 

viii.  8 446 

viii.  15 429 

viii.  20 376 

viii.  35 357,426 

ix.  3 304 

X.  2,  10 304 

X.5 375 

X.  16 4.35 

X.18 213,304 

X.  18-32 434. 

\ 
NEHEMIAH. 

i 429 

i.3 429,  430 

ii.  10,  19 431 

iii.  29 4;J6 

V.  2 431,4*3 

v.5 241,  4:« 

V.  8 241 

V.  15 428 

V.  6-13 431 

vi.  6-14 4:32 

vi.l7 4;il 

vii 431 

Vii.  7 426 

vii.  60 376 

vii.  64 213 

vii.  66 314,  435 

vii.  70-72 425 

vii.  73 4*3 

viii.  1 425,  431 

viii.  5 4.31 

viii.  7.  13 4.<?5 

v-iii.  9-12 425 

viii.  17 47,415 

ix.  1 431 

ix.  6 438,4;}9 

ix.  14 328 

ix.  20 141 

ix.  30 431 

x.l 4.35 

X.  29 378.426 

X.  31 3.35 

X.  32 3-M 

X.  33 272 

X.  3.5,  sq Vi^ 

xi.3 376.4.3.3 

xi.  25  6q 430 

xii.  7 375 

xii.  44,  47 377,4.33 

xiii.  4 4.31 

xiii.  5 377 

xiii.  6 4.33 

xiii.  13 4.36 

xiii.  15,  19 .335 

xiii.  2fi -..4.31 

xiii.  38 213,431,434 


ESTHER.  PAGEfl 

iii.  7 430 

iv.  13 155 

ix.  24-26 430 

JOB. 

i.  sq....442,  449,  4.50,  562 

i.  5 26;3 

i.  « 1:35 

i.21 151,  152 

ii.  1 1.35 

ii.  6  449 

iii.  13,  19 173 

iii.  17 160,  173 

iii.  17-19 173 

iv.  Fq .-MiS 

iv.  12-15 173,  .562 

iv.  15 109,172 

iv.  17,  sq 158 

V.  1 442 

V.  27 538 

vi.  10 Ill 

vi.  13  550 

vii 557 

vii.  7,  eq 5(>4 

vii.  9 171 

vii.  21 171 

viii .561 

viii.  g,  sq 5:,8 

ix.  9 4-10 

ix.  13 440,514 

ix.  31 177 

ix.  37 1.54 

X.  30,  32 170,  564 

xi.  7,  sq 644 

xii.  6 .55 

xii.  7-12 538 

xii.  10 119,  150,  1.52 

xiii 470 

xiv 5.57,  564 

xiv.  4 158,  162 

xiv.5 119 

xiv.  8 5:30 

xiv.  10,  12 171 

xiv.  14,  15 564 

xiv.  22 169 

XV.  7,  eq 543 

XV.  30-35 561 

xvi.  18,  sq 338,  561 

xvii.  1 150 

xviii 561 

xix.  25 337 

xix.  25-27 564 

XX 561 

xxi.  4 151 

xxii.  6 474 

xxiv.  7,  10 474 

xxiv.  9. 341 

xxv.  5 440 

xxvi.  5 171 

xxvi.  6 170,  172 

xxvi.  12,  sq 544 

xxvi.  13 440 

.xxvii.  2 151 

xxvii.  3 119 

xxvii.  5,  sq 556 

xxvii.  6 153 

xxvii.  11 ...561 

xxviii 543,  501 

xxviii.  12,  eq .5-12 

xxviii.  28,  sq 5-12 

.xxviii.  25-27 542 

.xxviii.  28 102,  516 

xxix.  7-11 383 

.xxix.  31-25 .388 

XXX.  33 170 

XXX.  28 4(a 

xxxi 548,  .556 

xxxi.  7 154 

xxxi.  1.3-15 245 

xxxi.  26-28 413,  440 

xxxi.  33 160 


588 


TEXTUAL   IN"DEX. 


JOB.  PAGES 

xxxi.  38 344 

xxxi.  39 153 

xxxii.  8 150 

xxxiii.  4 119,  150 

sxxiii.  14,  sq .480 

xxxiii.  14-29 562 

xxxiii.  15,  sq 143 

xxxiii.  22 450 

xxxiii.  23 442,  450 

xxxiii.  24 278,442 

xxxiii.  26 461 

xxxiii.  28 463 

xxxiv.  10 253,  562 

xxxiv.  14,  sq 169 

xxxiv.  37 160,  161 

XXXV.  10 88 

xxxvi.  5-15 562 

xxxvi.  14 172 

xxxvi.  22 563 

xxxvii.  12,  sq 544 

xxxvii.  21,  sq 563 

xxxviii 564 

xxxviii.  4-7 117,  135, 

439,544 

xxxviii.  10 119 

xxxviii.  11 544 

xxxviii.  28,  sq 117 

xxxviii.  31,  sq 440 

xxxviii.  33 544 

xxxviii.  41 122 

xxxix-xli 382 

xl 562 

xli.  13 152 

xlii.  7 537 

xlii.  8 263 

PSALMS. 

i.6 177 

ii 371,  524 

ii.  2..   522,  524 

ii.  4 123,  138 

ii.  7 374 

ii.  8 373 

iii 558 

iii.  5 137,372 

iv.  5 455,  558 

iv.  8,  sq 559 

V.  5 111,558 

vi.  4 151,  154 

vi.  6 558 

vii 558 

vii.  4 287 

vii.  10 155 

viii.2 125 

viii.  4 440 

viii.  6    90,146,147 

viii.  7-9 146 

ix 558 

ix.  13 237 

ix.  18 15,  16 

X.  1,  13 557 

X.  4,  sq 556 

X.  16 199 

xi.  4 137,441,442 

xii 557 

xiii.  3 155 

xiv 538,  557 

xiv.  1 538,  556 

xiv.  3 30 

XV 376,  452 

XV.  4 2,50 

xvi 559 

xvi.  2 92 

xvi.  5 212 

xvi.  7 480 

xvi.  9 1.51 

xvi.  10 150,  109,  559 

xvii 560 

xvii.  1,  sq 556 

xvii.  3 155 

xvii.  15 559 


PSALMS.  PAGES 

xviii.  1 549 

xviii.  7 137 

xviii.  11 259,260 

xviii.  21,  sq SJO 

xviii.  25,  26 115,  195 

xviii.  44,  48 371,  373 

xix 462 

xix.  2,  sq 16 

xix.  5,  7,  sq 440,  540 

xix.  8,  sq...  153,455,  539 

xix.  13 461 

XX.  2 127 

XX.  3 372 

XX.  6,  7 369,  481 

xxi.  3 155 

xxi.  4,  6 374 

xxi.  5,  7 524 

xxi.  10 128 

xxii 531,  563 

xxii.4,  7 107,533 

xxii.  15  153 

xxii.  23  .532 

xxii.  29 561 

xxiii.  3 127 

xxiv 375,  438 

xxiv.  4 189 

xxiv.  4-6 452 

xxiv.  6 180,  517 

xxiv.  7,  sq 199 

xxiv.  10 438,443 

XXV.  11 127 

XXV.  14. 547 

xxvi.  7,  sq 452 

xxvii.  3 551 

xxvii.  4 248,  453 

xxvii.  14 154 

xxviii.  1 172 

xxviii.  4,  6 540 

xxviii.  10 369 

xxis.  1  . . .    .  136,  441,  442 

xxix.  5.. 443 

xxix.  9 137,441 

xxix.  27,  sq 374 

XXX.  4 150,  109,  172 

XXX.  9 558 

xxxi.  4.; 1^7 

xxxi.  6 113 

xxxi.  25 154 

xxxii 462,547 

xxxii.  2 161 

xxxii.  5 100 

xxxii.  6 480 

xxxiii.6 118,  439 

xxxiii.  9 116,  120 

xxxiii.  21 107 

xxxiv 441,  462,  541 

xxxiv.  7 443 

xxxiv.  21 349 

XXXV.  17 557 

xxxvi.  6,  7 113 

xxxvi.  9, 10..  101,  118,257 

xxxvii.  18 177 

xxxvii.  31 455 

xxxix.  4 156 

xxxix.  14 171 

xl.  7,  8 303,  4.52,  4.-)6 

xl.  15  560 

xlii.  sq 4.'52 

xlii.  2,  sq 153 

xlii.  3  101,  137 

xlii.  6 154,  460 

xlii.  12 151 

xliv.  2 233 

xliv.  5 200 

xliv.  6 127 

xJv 524 

xlvi 409 

xlvi.  5 30,372 

xlvi.  7,  11 443 

xlvi.  10,  sq 521 

xlvii , 403  I 


PSALMS.  PAGES 

xlviii 403 

xlviii.  3 199 

xlviii.  14 559,  560 

xlix.  3 541 

xlix.  3,14 560 

xlix.  15 560 

xlix.  20 169 

1 376,452 

1.  1 87 

1.  5 264 

1.  12,  sq 112 

1.  14 293 

1.  16,  sq 467 

1.  21 461 

Ii 462 

Ii.  6 123,547 

Ii.  7 162 

Ii.  10,  12 153,456 

Ii.  12 .456 

Ii.  13 110,  141,  143 

li.  18 288,452 

Ii.  19 462 

li.  20 452 

li.  21 285 

liv.  3 126 

liv.  8 288 

Iv.  16 173 

Iv.  17 454 

Ivi.  13 287,  288 

Ivii.  3 89 

lix 558 

lix.  5 439 

Ix 428 

Ix.  1 234 

Ix.  3 449 

Ixi.  7 524 

Ixii.  2 154 

Ixii.  6 460 

Ixiii 452 

Ixiii.  3 137,559 

Ixiii.  4  196 

Ixv.  2,  6 122 

Ixvi.  13-15 293 

Ixvi.  18 154,293 

Ixviii 470 

Ixviii.  15 91 

Ixviii.  17 442 

Ixviii.  20 559 

Ixviii.  22 297 

Ixviii.  25 200 

Ixviii.  26,  sq 377 

Ixix.  9 558,  560 

Ixix.  10 558 

Ixix.  31 99 

Ixxi.  7 139 

Ixxii 524 

Ixxii.  8 373 

Ixxii.  9,  17 321,  524 

Ixxiii 560 

Ixxiii.  5 135 

Ixxiii.  7 153 

Ixxiii.  13 559 

Ixxiii.  15...  135,  180,463 

ixxiii.  23-25 549,  560 

Ixxiii.  26,  27. 154, 456, 4.58, 
459,  560 

Ixxiv 428 

Ixxiv.  2 372 

Ixxiv.  9 363,  466,480 

Ixxiv.  12 199 

Ixxv 409 

Ixxv.  2 127 

l.xxv.  8 99,449 

Ixxvi.  2 97 

Isxvi.  3 372 

Ixxvi.  12 412 

Ixxvii.  14,  sq....l07,  140 

Ixxvii.  14-16 73 

l-xxvii.  17-21.... 71 

Ixxvii.  39 167 

Ixxviii 75,  541 


PSALMS.  PAGES 

Ixxviii.  2 541 

ixxviii.  3-6 233 

Ixxviii.  25 445 

Ixxviii.  43,  sq 70 

Ixxviii.  49 451 

Ixxviii.  58,  sq 114 

Ixxviii.  60 356 

Ixxviii.  68 372 

Ixxviii.  70,  72.... 369, 371 

Ixxix 428 

Ixxix.  6,  sq 497 

Ixxix.  9 ...462 

Ixxx 386 

Ixxx.  1 260 

Ixxx.  4,7 439,443 

Ixxx.  14,  19 439,443 

Ixxxi.  11,  12....  165,166, 

443 

Ixxxii 90 

Ixxxii.  7 161 

Ixxxiii.  10,  12 355 

Ixxxiv 452 

Ixxxiv.  3....  101,  151,  155 

Ixxxiv.  8 439 

Ixxxv 428 

Ixxxvi.  13 169,  170 

Ixxx  vii 372,491,  518, 

525 

Ixxxvii.  1 372,  381 

Ixxxvii.  3,  sq 520 

Ixxxviii 560 

Ixxxviii.  5 171 

Ixxxviii.  7 170,172 

Ixxxviii.  11, 13...  171,558 

Ixxxviii.  13 171 

Ixxxix 428 

Ixxxix.  4 176 

Ixxxix.  6-8 441 

Ixxxix.  7 135 

Ixxxix.  20-28 373 

Ixxxix.  30,  sq 523 

Ixxxix.  37,  sq 523 

Ixxxix.  39,  51....  369,  373 

Ixxxix.  48,  sq  168 

Ixxxix.  49 169 

Ixxxix.  50 373 

xc 524,558 

xc.  1,  sq 100 

xc.  2 117 

xc.  3 561 

xc.  4 100 

xc.  7-9 557 

xc.  7-10 167 

xci.  1 91 

xci.  11 441,448 

xcii 334 

xcii.  5 540 

xciii.  1 517 

xciv.  8-10 15,  16,  146 

xciv.  17 169,  171 

xcv.  8,  sq 75,  164 

xcvi.-xcviii 525 

xcvi.  10 517 

xcvi.-xcix 425 

xcvii 525 

xcvii.  1 517 

xcviii.  7 90 

xcviii 525 

xcviii.  7,  sq 521 

xcix.  1 254 

xcix.  2-5 106 

xcix.  5 257 

c.  3 178 

ci 372 

ci.  4 153 

ci.5 155 

oil 426 

cii.  5 153 

cii.  13,  14 426 

cii.  26,  sq 117,440 

cii.  27,  sq 120,513 


TEXTUAL   IKDEX. 


589 


FSALMS.  PAGES 

cii.  38,  sq 100,199 

Clii 462 

ciii.  1,  gq...  107,  109,  127 

ciii.  10,  14 158,  168 

ciii.  15-18 557 

ciii.  19 138 

ciii.  20,  21... 441,  444,  445 

civ 118,  544 

civ.  2..  130 

civ.  4 135,  136,441 

civ.  15 153 

civ.  19,  sq 325,  440 

civ.  24 540 

civ.  27 122,342 

civ.  28 121, [169 

civ.  29,  sq..  120,  140,  149, 

civ.  30 117 

civ.  31 no,  121 

civ.  35 121,  554 

cv.  3 107 

cv.  15 364,521 

cvi.  16 214 

cvi.  18 288 

cvi.  23 533 

cvi.  28 101 

cvi.  32,  sq 76,  77 

cvi.  37 91 

cvii.  24 140 

cix 558 

cix.6 448 

cix.  18 322 

cix.  21 127 

cix.  29 448 

ex 524,  525 

ex.  2 372 

ex.  4 61,216 

cxi.  9,  10 126,546 

cxii.  7,  sq 459 

cxiii.-cxviii S47 

cxiv 71,  346 

cxv.-cxviii 346 

cxv.  1 127 

cxv.  3 540 

cxv.  4,  sq 498 

cxv.  10 310 

cxv.  17 171 

cxvi.  7 154 

cxviii 346 

cxviii.  3 310 

cxlx 455,  539 

cxix.  18 322,540 

cxix.  20 155 

cxix.  33 155 

cxix.  70 165 

cxLx.  81 155 

cxx.-cxxxiv 377 

cxxi.  2 117 

cxxiv.  8 127 

cxxv.  1,  sq 372,  374 

cxxvii.  3,  sq 148 

cxxviii.  3,  sq 148 

cxxx.  3-5 457,460 

cxxx.  4 461 

cxxx.  7 462 

cxxxi.  2 154 

cxxxii.  6 361 

cxxxii.  7 257 

cxxxii.  11,  sq 523 

cxxxiii.  2 216 

cxxxv.  6 116,540 

cxxxv.  19 310 

.csxxvi 347 

cxxxvii 423 

cxxxvii.  4-6 424 

cxxxvii.  7 420 

cxxxviii.  1 90 

cxxsix 112,  540 

cxxxix.  4 479 

cxxxls.  6 117 

cxxxix.  7...128,  441,  479 
cxxxix.  8 172 


I  PSALMS.  PAGES 

'  cxxxix.  14 140,  155 

cxxxix.  15 151 

cxxxLx.  17,  21 . . .  540,  558 

cxxxix.  23,  sq 547 

cxli.  2 156,273,274 

cxli.  7 561 

\  cxlii.  5. 551 

'  cxliii.2 165 

cxliii.  4,  11 127 

,  cxliii.  10 141,456 

cxlv.  9 131 

cxlv.  15,  sq 131 

cxlv.  16 343 

I  cxlvi.  4 149,  171 

cxlvii.  9 122 

cxlvii.  1.5-18 120 

cxlvii.  15 540 

cxlvii.  18,  sq 188 

cxlvii.  19,  sq....  184,  539, 
540 

cxlviii 544 

cxlviii.  2 441 

cxlviii.  6 119,  120 

cxlviii.  8 540 

cl.l 441 

cl.  6 150 

PROVEKBS. 

i.  3 545 

i.  3 545 

i.4 546 

i.  5 549 

i.  6 383,383,541 

i.  7 545,  546 

i.  8 555 

i.  13 170,  173 

i.  30 383,  &46 

i.  23 545 

i.33 545 

i.  34,  sq 546 

ii.  1-9 555 

ii.  6 551 

ii.  7 ..550 

ii.  12,  sq 553 

ii.  17 553 

ii.  18 171,551 

ii.  21.. 551 

iii.  5,  7 547 

iii.  6 547,549 

iii.  11 545,  554 

iii.  15  553 

iii.  18 551 

iii.  19,  sq 541 

iu.  21 550 

iii.  32 547 

iv.  3 555 

iv.  13 545 

iv.  23 153,548 

V 553 

V.  5 551 

V.12 546 

vi.  1^ 549 

vi.  6-11 555 

vi.  18 548 

vi.  20,  sq 555 

vi.  25 154,189 

vi.  23,  sq 553 

vi.  35 278 

vii 542 

vii.  5,  sq 555 

vii.  27 551 

viii 543 

viii.  13 547 

viii.  14 550 

Viii.  15,  sq 3G9 

viii.  16 545 

viii.  33 30,  542 

viii.  27-31 542 

viii.  35 196,550 

ix.  1,  sq  545 

ix.  10 88,546 


PROVERBS.       PAGES 

ix.  18 551 

X.  1 553 

x.-xxii 541 

X.  7 551 

X.  8 153 

X.  10  549 

X.  13 549 

X.  17 545,546 

X.  25 549 

X.  26 555 

X.  30 551,552 

xi.  4 552 

xi.  7 551,  552 

xi.  8.... 278,  497,  499,  551 

xi.  13 549 

xi.  14 553 

xi.  15,  17 549 

xi.  16,  23 556 

xi.  19 550 

xi.  28 553 

xii.  1 546 

xii.  4 148,553,556 

xii.  15 547 

xii.  35 154 

xii.  28 196,551 

xiii.  2 154 

xiii.  8 378 

xiii.  9 550 

xiii.  14 550 

xiii.  18  546 

xiii.  20 383 

xiii.  21...   550 

xiii.  24 545 

xiii.  25 555 

xiv.  10 155 

xiv.  15 549 

xiv.  39 549 

xiv.  31 549 

xiv.  32 551 

xiv.  34 553 

XV.  1 549 

XV.  5 546 

XV.  6 552 

XV.  8 548 

XV.  11 170,172,547 

XV.  13 383 

XV.  16  552 

XV.  18 549 

XV.  19 555 

XV.  24 170,551 

xvi.  2 547 

xvi.  4 123,554 

xvi.  12-15   553 

xvi.  16 552 

xvi.  33 122 

x\'ii.  3 155,548 

xvii.  6 554 

xvii.  10 551 

xvii.  14 549 

xvii.  21 553 

xvui.  10,  18 126,219 

xviii.  21 549 

xvili.  23 549,553 

xviii.  26 549 

xix.  2 155 

xix.  14 148,553 

xix.  15,24 555 

xix.  20,  21 545,  550 

xLx.  35 555 

XX.  3 549 

XX.  4,  13 555 

XX.  8 553 

XX.  9 166,  548 

XX.  11,  20 555 

XX.  25 293 

XX.  26 553 

XX.  27 150,153,527 

XX.  30 555 

xxi.  3 548 

xxi.  4 155 

xxi.  16 171 


PROVERBS.       PAGES 

xxi.  18 278,497,  499 

xxi.  24 384 

xxi.  27 548 

xxii.  7 341 

xxii.  15, 17 382,  545, 

555 

xxii.  23 549 

xxiii.  13 555 

xxiii.  13-16 169 

xxiii. 14 555 

xxiii.  19-21 555 

xxiii.  23 545 

xxiii.  24 553,  554 

xxiii.  26-28 555 

xxiv.  23...: 383 

XXV.  sq 556 

XXV.  1 383 

XXV.  5 553 

XXV.  21,  sq 549 

XXV.  23 117 

XXV.  30 546 

xxvi.  13-16 555 

xxvii.  11 553 

xx\ii.  20,  23 170,  177 

xsviii.  7 554 

xxviii.  12,  15 553 

xxviii.  13 462,548 

xxviii.  14 164,547 

xxviii.  25 155 

xxix.  3 554 

xxix.  4 553 

xxix.  12,  14 553 

xxix.  15,  17 555 

xxix.  18 553 

xxix.  19-21 245 

xxix.  34 249 

XXX 556 

XXX.  1-5 538,543 

XXX.  9 .127 

XXX.  7-9 553,  553 

XXX.  15,  sq 541 

XXX.  16 170 

XXX.  17 555 

XXX.  18-20 541 

XXX.  21-23 541 

XXX.  29-31 541 

xxxi 556 

xxxl.  1-9 554 

xxxi.  10,  30  .148,  553, 556 
xxxi.  10-13 541 

ECCLESIASTES. 

i.  3 565 

ii.  12,  sq 566 

ii.  13,  sq 566 

ii.  26 537 

iii.  11,  14 566 

iii.  12 568 

iii.  13 568 

iii.  16,  sq 566 

iii.  18-21 169 

iii.  19,21 567 

iv.l7 (8ee§241) 

V.  1 548 

v.3,7 143 

V.  3-5 293 

vii.  3-4 563 

vii.  9 154 

vii.  14 568 

vii.  16-18 568 

vii.  20 166,430,548 

vii.  29 156 

viii.  13 566 

ix.4-6 567 

ix.  5 173,567 

ix.  10 567 

X.  16 402 

xi.  4-6 568 

xi.9,  sq 567,  569 

xii.l 88 

xii.  6,  7 155,  169,567 


590 


TEXTUAL  IKDEX. 


ECCLESIASTES.  I 

PAGES  i 

xii.  11 541  I 

xil.  14 567  j 

SOLOMON'S  SONG. 

V.6 151  ! 

vi.  9 553  i 

viii.  6 217,553  | 

ISAIAH.  { 

i 80,411, 

i.  1,2 

i.  1-10 

i.5 

i.r 

i.  10,  sq 408, 

i.  11,  sq 

i.  15 320, 

i.  18 317, 

i.  21 320, 

i.  23 


,476, 
'  407, 
'  485, 


.405, 


.235, 


u 

ii.  1 

ii.  1^.... 

ii.  2^ 

ii.3 

ii.  5,  sq... 

ii.  5-8 

ii.  11 

ii.  12 

ii.  16 

ii.  17 

iii.  16,  sq 

iv.  2 

V.  8,  9.... 

V.  14 

V.  16 106,499, 

V. 18-23 

Ti 442,466, 

Ti.  3 

Ti.  5 281, 

vi.  6,  8 105,444, 

vi.  7 194, 

vi.  9,  sq 405, 

vi.  10 

vi.  12,  sq 

vi.  13 

vii 408, 

vii.-xii 

vii.  3 

vii.  9 

vii.  14 

vlii 

viii.  1,  sq 

viii.  11 466,468, 

viii.  12,  13 

viii.  15 

viii.  15 

viii.  17,  8(1 460, 

viii.  18 

viii.  19 171, 

ix.  1-5 

ix.  2 

ix.  2,  3  355, 

ix.  4  , 

ix.  5 

ix.  6 490, 

ix.  9 

ix.  10 

ix.  14,  pq 

X.  5,  sq.3JU,  4'.i6,  499, 

X.  7 

X.  7,  13 

X.  16 

X.  17 110,  114, 

X.  18 

X.  21 507,  509, 

X.  24,  27 

X.  20 

xi.  1,  sq 537, 

xi.  4,  9 


477 
456 
411 
456 
411 
411 
4.52 
408 
320 
456 
289 
491 
477 
485 
517 
489 
510 
.405 
.499 
499 
405 
500 
556 
527 
476 
.170 
500 
,405 
473 
.443 
457 
481 
445 
493 
165 
509 
.507 
410 
489 
509 
459 
527 
.408 
.407 
474 
460 
460 
401 
507 
1.39 
172 
.487 
.490 
,490 
.530 
.537 
527 
.397 


501 
155 
499 
439 
282 
151 
527 
408 
3.55 
530 
531 


ISAIAH.  PAGES 

xi.  6-8 157,510 

xi.  10,  sq 519 

xi.  13 509 

xii.  3 352 

xiii.  3,  sq 496 

xiii.  6 91 

xiii.  9,  sq 500,502 

xiii.  13 502 

xiii.  21 451 

xiv.  1,  sq 519 

siv.  3 424 

xiv.  9,  sq 171 

xiv.  10 171 

xiv.  11 170 

xiv.  13 499 

xiv.  14 89,  172 

xiv.  15 170,  173 

xiv.  18 170 

XV.  1 396,  407,  498 

XV.  6 59 

xvi.  9-11 475 

xvi.  12 498 

xvi.  14 488 

xviii 409 

xviii.  4 123 

xviii.  7  412 

xix 496,520 

XIX.  1 104 

xix.  14 449 

xix.  19 520 

xix.  23 496 

XX.  1 409 

XX.  2...  139,  392,  474,  477 

XX.  5 409,  635 

XX.  15 411 

xxi.  1-10 475 

xxi.  3 477 

xxi.  6-8 476 

xxi.  8  480 

xxi.  10,  11 476 

xxi.  16 488 

xxii.  1-14 409 

xxii.  9-11 411 

xxii.  14 476 

xxii.  21 213 

xxiii.  15-17 448,  488 

xxiii.  18 .517 

xxiv.-xxvii 498,  502 

xxiv.  5 498 

xsiv.  21 447 

xxiv.  22 515 

xxiv.  23 440,  517 

XXV.  6,  sq 531,  561 

XXV.  8 513 

XXV.  9 460 

xxvi.  4 95,  513 

xxvi.  8,  sq..l27,  155,  515 

xxvi.  9 151 

xxvi.  14 171 

xxvi.  18,  19 513,515 

xxvi.  21...    .238,513,  515 

xxvii.  1,  13 502 

xxvii.  8 506 

xxvii.  9 278 

xxviii.  3 398 

xxviii.  7 408 

xxviii.  16 460,  461 

xxviii.  22 476 

xxviii.  23-29 114,  197 

xxviii.  24,  6q....500,  .508 

xxviii.  29 527 

xxix.  1 415 

xxix.  4 171 

xxix.  13 408 

xxix.  10 476 

xxix.  16 558 

xxix,  18 457 

XXIX.  20,  sq 408 

XXX.  1,9 4.56 

XXX.  4 409 

XXX.  8 407 


ISAIAH.  PAGES 

XXX.  10 475,477 

XXX.  15,  sq 408,460 

XXX.  20 4.57 

XXX.  22 411 

XXX.  27 126 

XXX.  29 a46,  377,  415 

xxxi.  3 112 

xxxi.  4 442 

xxxi.  5 346 

xxxi.  9 282 

xxxii.  3 4.57 

xxxiii.  7 29,409 

xxxiii.  14 282 

xxxiii.  22 199,  217 

xxxiii.  24  511 

xxxiv 502 

xxxiv.  4 440 

xxxiv.  5 267 

xxxiv.  14 451 

xxxiv.  16 407 

XXXV.  4,  sq 521 

xxxvi.-xxxix 410 

xxxvi.  1 411 

xxxvi.  7 409,411 

xxxvi.  10  97 

xxxvi.  18-20 498 

xxxvii.  3 411 

xxxvii.  4,  17 101 

xxxvii.  8,  sq 411 

xxxvii.  28 496 

xxxvii.  30 343 

xxxvii.  36 412,  451 

xxxviii 412 

xxxviii.  11 170,  558 

xxxviii.  18 172 

xxxix 410 

xxxix.  6 500 

xl 424,  428,  489,  534 

xl.-xlviii 453 

xl.-lxvi 120,  167,424, 

489,  532 

xl.  6,  7,  sq 460,505 

xl.  10,  sq 521 

xl.  13 112 

xl.  15-17  498 

xl.  17,  sq 498 

xl.21 199,538 

xl.  25 106,  111,459 

xl.  26 15,  440 

xl.  28 512,  538 

xii 496 

xii.  4 95 

xii.  6,  sq 498 

xii.  8,  sq  ...  61,  507,  517 

xii.  21 487 

xJi.  22 19 

xii.  29 105,533 

xiii.  1 533 

xiii.  4 517 

xiii.  5 119,  120,  150 

xiii.  6 517,  532 

xiii.  18-25 505,  517 

xliii.  1 178 

xliii.  3,  sq 497 

xliii.  4,  7 126,  135 

xliii.  9 19 

xliii.  9-13 487 

xliii.  10 104,  112 

xliii.  15 178,  199 

xliii.  21 14,  457,  4.58 

xliii.  27.. 100,  106,  457,  532 

xliii.  28 375 

xliv.  1,  sq 517 

xliv.  5     518 

xliv.  6... 95,  100,  104,  199 

xliv.  7 19 

xliv.  9,  sq 105,  498 

xhv.  15 534 

xliv.  18 165 

xliv.  19 153 

xliv.  22,  25 460,487 


ISAIAH.  PAGES 

xliv.  28  424,426 

xiv.  5,18 104 

xiv.  7 123, 124 

xiv.  9 499 

xiv.  9-11 558 

xiv.  11 107,  178 

xiv.  12 440 

xiv.  14 518 

xiv.  15 15 

xiv.  16 248 

xiv.  21,  22 487,496 

xlvi.  1 105 

xlvi.  5 498 

xlvii.  6 424,499 

xlviii.  4 59 

xlvi  ii.  8-11 457,505 

xlviii.  12 100 

xlviii.  16 533 

xlix.  6  517 

xlix.  7 107,113 

xlix.  8 532 

xlix.  14,  sq 505 

xlix.  22 519 

xlix.  23 321 

1.1 241,423,505 

1.4 464,  476,  533 

1.  10 460,461 

1.  11 424 

Ii.  5,  6 440,517 

Ii.  13,  33 434 

Ii.  15 443 

Ii.  17 449 

Iii.  6  16 

Iii.  8 428,  476 

Iii.  12 521 

liii 493,532 

liii.  1 5.32 

liii.  4 534 

liii.  6 532 

liii.  7 273 

liii.  8-10 53.3,534 

liii.  12  1.52,  534 

liv.  5 88,444 

liv.  6 507 

liv.  7-10 505 

liv.  8,  sq 507 

liv.  9 56 

liv.  13 508 

liv.  17 507 

Iv.  3 175,373,534 

Iv.  6 480 

Iv.  8 482 

Iv.ll 467 

Ivi.  2 335 

Ivi.  3  517,518 

Ivi.  7 453,  518,  519 

Ivi.  10 533 

Ivii.  1,  sq 513 

Ivii.  3,  sq 424 

Ivii.  15 107,  109,  1.38 

Mi.  20 160 

Iviii 4.54 

Iviii.  3 452 

Iviii.  7 474 

Iviii.  13,  sq  .  334,  335,  453 

lix.  12,  16 532 

lix.21 507 

Ix 517 

Ix.  7 453 

Ix.  9-11 517 

Ix.  21 507 

Ixi.  1 394 

Ixi.  8 175 

Ixi.  10 153,  154 

Ixii.  2,  11,  15 94 

Ixiii.  1-U 602 

Ixiii.  10 no,  142,  167 

Ixiii.  11.. 71,  141,  180,508 

Ixiii.  15 441 

ixiii.  16 178,  181 

Ixiii.  17 165,  166 


TEXTUAL   INDEX. 


591 


ISAIAH,  PAGES 

ixiv.  4 105,  1G6 

Ixiv.  6 457 

Ixiv.  7 178,  180 

Ixv.  1 16 

Ixv.  3 423 

Ixv.  4  454 

Ixv.  8,  sq 507,  517 

Ixv.  17 15 

Ixv.  19 511 

Ixv.  25 157,510 

Ixvi.  1 137 

Ixvi.  1-3 4.53,519 

Ixvi.  16,  17 454,  515 

Ixvi.  18-21 519 

Ixvi.  20 453 

Ixvi.  22 15 

Ixvi.  23 324,519 

Ixvi.  24 169,  515 

J£££MIAH. 

i.  2 393,  415,  473 

i.  4,  sq 466 

i.  6 473 

i.  7 394 

i.  9 ..466 

i.  10, 11,  13 467,478 

i.  18 416 

1.19 474 

11. 1 456 

li.  2 456,458 

li.  8 413,435 

ii.  26,80 413 

iii.  1 231,456,  506 

ill.  5 456 

iii.  14 459 

iii.16,  Bq...l38,  435,  521 

iii.  16 257 

iii.  17 153 

iii.  19,20 83,180,414 

iv.  2 62,  248 

iv.  3 492 

iv.  4 194 

iv.  19 154,  155 

iv.  27 416 

V.  8,  sq 343 

V.  14 252 

V.  20 452 

V.  22 119 

V.  31 415 

vl.  13 415 

vl.  17 366,476 

vi.  20 452,454 

vi.  27 366 

vii.  1-15 415 

vii.  4,  sq 415,  500 

vii.  12 252,356 

vii.  13 413 

vii.  21,  22..    289,452,4.54 

vii.  25 363 

vii.  30 413 

viii.  2 413 

viii.  .3,8 413,  435 

viii.  9 383 

viii.  10,  11 415 

ix.  24,  sq 192,  194 

X 16 

x.  3,  sq 105 

X.  6 126 

X.  8 498 

X.  12 543 

X.  16 443 

X.  24 114,506 

X.  25 497 

xi.  1-8 415 

xi.  20 155 

xi.  21 416 

xii.  1 563 

xii.  15-18 557 

xiii.  4,  7 480 

xiii.  Iti,  18 402,  460 

xiv.9 iS& 


JUBEMIAH.       PAGES 

xiv.  12 452 

XV.  1 492,  532 

XV.  4,9 152,413 

XV.  16     466,  475 

XV.  20 474 

xvi.  1 507 

xvii.  5 459 

xvii.  9 1:A 

xvii.  16 466,467,475 

xvii.  21,  sq 335 

xvii.  26 289,  452 

xviii.  1-10 492 

xviii.  7 492,  494,498 

xviii.  18 212,383,  415 

xviii.  23 278 

XX.  7 394,  466 

XX.  9 156 

XX.  11 474 

xxi.  9 4C3 

xxl.  26 480 

xxii.  10-12 417 

xxii.  18-19 417 

xxii.  24-30 418 

xxiii 466,  527 

xxiii.  3 507 

xxiii.  6 527 

xxiii.  9 119 

xxiii.  11 415 

xxiii.  16 464,  478 

xxiii.  18 15,466,  482 

xxiii.  25 478 

xxiii.  28    ..143,467,478 

xxiii.  30,  sq 464 

xxiii.  33 477 

xxiii.  35  479 

xxiii.  36 101 

xxiv 418 

xxiv.  7 457 

xxiv.  16,  24 421 

XXV 418,488 

XXV.  3 415 

XXV.  29 501 

xxvi 417 

xxvi.  3 492 

xxvi.  7,  sq 416 

xxvi.  18 408,  492 

xxvi.  19 493 

xxvii.-xxix 419 

xxvii.  1 420 

xxvii.  3,  5 419,  496 

xxviii 420,  466 

xxviii.  1 420 

xxix.  sq 420 

xxix.  1 426 

xxix.  2,  3 402,419 

xxix.  5-7 422 

xxix.  13,  18 4.57,460 

xxix.  24-32 466,473 

XXX.  2 407 

XXX.  9 457,  527 

XXX.  10,  11 506,  517 

XXX.  20,  21 457,  528 

xxx.-xxxiii 420 

xxxi.  2 505 

xxxi.  9 178,460,  507 

xxxi.  14 452 

xxxi.  19,22 1.39,507 

xxxi.  26 478 

xxxi.  29 163,  563 

xxxi.  31,  33..  154, 4.57,  .508 

xxxi.  34 363,305,  .508 

xxxi.  ,35 507,  544 

xsxi.  38,  sq 510 

xxxii.  3 4.57 

xxxii.  16 479 

xxxii.  18,  20 135 

xxxii.  40 175 

xxxiii.  10,  sq 421 

xxxiH.  11 .'i~7',  452 

xxxiii.  14-26 527 

xxiiii.  15. 10 527 


JEEEMIAH.       PAGES 

xxxiii.  18 452 

xxxiii.  20 62,  176 

xxxiii.  25 119 

xxxiii.  35 544 

xxxiv.  1-7 419 

xxxiv.  8 241 

xxxiv.  8-10 343 

xxxiv.  13 47 

xxxiv.  18 175 

XXXV.  6 393 

XXXV.  8 297 

XXXV.  11 418 

xxxvi.  2,  3 407,492 

xxxvi.  9 327,  418 

xxxvi,  10 379 

xxxvii 419 

xxxviii 420 

xxx\'iii.  17-20 150 

xxxix.  1-7 420 

xxxix.  8  sq 420 

xxxix.  10 421 

xxxix.  11-14 421 

xxxix.  18 508 

xl-xliv 421 

xl.  1-6 421 

xl.  7,  sq 421 

xii.  l,sq 421,423 

xii.  5 399,  422 

xiii.  4 479 

xiii.  7 480 

xliii.  8-14 121 

xliv.  17,  sq ■!21 

xliv.  30 421 

xlv.  5 4G3 

xM.  1-12 417 

xlvi.  2 419 

xin.  10,  sq 267 

xlvi.  10-26 418 

xlvi.  27,  sq 517 

xlvii.  6,  eq 417,418 

xlviii 516 

xlviii.  42 518 

xlviii.  47 489,  518 

xlix.  6,  7 502,516 

1.  sq 419,502 

1.5 507 

li.  11,  sq 496 

li.l5 543 

li.  30    422 

li.  39,  57 515 

li.  59 419 

Iii.  4,  6.  12 423 

Iii.  28,  29 421 

LAMENTATIONS. 

ii.  6 500 

ii.  9 363,466,  485 

ii.  14  477 

ii.  20 420 

iii.  20-24 155 

iii.  27 555 

iii.  33 155 

iii.  37.  sq 123 

iii.  39 163,556,  558 

iv.  7 200 

iv.  9,  sq 'lOO 

iv.  19,  21 420 

V.  7 163 

V.  9 420 

EZEKIEL. 

i 260,  393 

i.  1 .343.406,  466 

1.  2,  3  426,  466,  475 

i.  26,  28 M6,  4T3 

ii.  1,2 146,  473 

ii.  8 466 

ii.  10 475 

iii.  1,  3 466,  475 

iii.  11 406 

iii.  14 466,475 


EZEKIEL,  PAGES 

iii.  17 366,394 

iv.  13,  14 423,453 

V.  5 83,497,521 

V.  8 500 

vii.  12 343 

vii.  26 212,  466 

viii.  1-3 479 

viii.  14,  sq 413 

viii.  15-17 413 

viii.  16-18 377 

Ix 500 

ix.  4 .513 

X.  1 259 

X.  2,  6,  7 314 

X.  5 91 

xi.  1 479 

xi.  6 482 

xi.  19 458 

X!.21 154 

xi.  25 423 

xii 488 

xii.  13 420,  421 

xiii.  2,  eq 464 

xiii.  5 532 

xiii.  9 420 

xiv.  1 423 

xiv.  1-20 485 

xiv.  3,  sq 423 

xiv.  14,  sq 533 

xiv.  14-20 507 

xvi 456,458 

xvi.  5 70 

xvi.  8 73 

xvi.  60 507 

xvi.  63 507 

xvii 419,525 

xvii.  2 541 

xvii.  15,  16 250,420 

xvii.  22,  sq 530 

xviii....  163,  453,  515,563 

xviii.  2,  sq 383 

xviii.  4 150,  151 

xviii.  30-32 402 

XX.  1 423,  453 

XX.  1^ 485 

XX.  6 83 

XX.  7 68 

XX.  12..328,  334,  335,  453 

XX.  14,  22  127 

XX.  16 154 

XX.  26 267,268 

xxi 419 

xxi.  3,  8 513 

xxi.  26 479 

xxi.  27 523 

xxii.  26 106,415,454 

xxiii.  8 68 

xxiv.  16 213 

xxiv.  17 238 

xxiv.  18 480 

xxiv.  19 423 

xxvi.  20 170,  172 

xxviii.  8,  10 534 

xxviii.  14 260 

XXX.  4,  sq 496 

xxxi.  9 496 

xxxi.  14 170 

xxxii.  18 170 

xxxii.  22 170,171 

xxxii.  23 172,  173 

xxxiii.  2 476 

xxxiii.  7 366 

xxxiii.  11 492 

xxxiii.  17 163 

xxxiii.  31 154 

xxxiv 521,527 

xxxiv.  11,  sa 521 

xxxiv.  24... "175,  521,  527 

xxxiv.  25,  sq 175,  510 

XXXV 502 

XXXV.  10 4^ 


592 


TEXTUAL   INDEX. 


i.  4... 


EZEKEEL.  PAGES 

XXXV.  15 420 

xxxvi.  5 420 

xxxvi.  20,21....  106,505 

xxxvi.  25-27.... 453,  458, 

508 

xxxvii 513 

sxxvii.  4,  11 514 

xxxvii.  15,22 509 

xxxvii.  21 515 

xxxvii.  23-27 4.58 

xxxviii 428 

xxxviii.  2 153,428 

xxxviii.  12 83,502 

xxxviii.  16 489,502 

xxxviii.  21 502 

xxxviii.  24 527 

xxxix.  7 -.106 

xxxix.  29 507 

xl.-xlii 378 

xl.-xlviii 453 

xl.  45,  46 205,430 

xl.  47 379 

xli.  18 259 

xliii.  2,  7 521,524 

xliii.  15,  sq 282 

xliii.  19 20.5,430 

xliv.  6,  7....194,  205,  272 

xliv.  9 154,429 

xliv.  15 415 

xliv.  23,  24 209 

xliv.  23 454 

xliv.  28 214 

xlv 324 

xlv.  18-20 319 

xlv.  21 326 

xlvi.  3,  9,  11 324,327 

slvi.  17 339 

xlvii.  6,  sq  510  t  v.  7  388 

xlviii.  1-7 200  j  v.  13,  sq 397 

xlviii.  11 429,  430    vi.  S 512 

xlviii.  23-28 ..200    vi.  6 452 

vi.  7 160 

vi.  9 


DANIEL.  PAGES 

X.  8-10 474 

X.9  479 

X.  13,  14 446,488 

X.  16,  18 446 

X.  20,  sq 446 

X.21 446 

xi.  6 503 

xi.  16 83 

xi.  33,  35 514 

xii.  1 446,  503,  514 

xii.  2,  3 514 

xii.  4 434 

xii.  6  314,528 

xii.  7 446 

xii.  10,  13 503,514 

HOSEA. 

479 

395 

456 

ii.  1 135,180 

ii.2 500,509 

ii.  8,  sq 196 

ii.  10 359 

ii.  13 334,  388 

ii.  16 73 

ii.  17,18 82,510 

ii.  19 507 

ii.  20 173 

ii.  23 510 

iii.. 423 

iii.2 323 

iii.  4 500 

iii.  5 509,536 

iv 396 

iv.  6-8 388,389 

iv.  15 388 


DANIEL. 

i.l 

i.  8,  sq 


418 

453 

. . .  496,  503 

ii.21 496 

ii.  27-34 443 

iv.  17 443 

iv.  27 454 

V 470 

V.21 ..443 

vi.  17 454 

vii 482,496,503 

vii.l 478 

vii.  8-11 503 

vii.  10 444 

vii.  13,  sq 446,529 

vii.  14 490 

vii.  18-23 89,  529  |  xii.  2 39 

'vii.  20,  25 503  I  xii.  4,  5 65,  130 

vii.  22,  26  503  \  xii.  6,  sq 95,  96 


vu 396 

vii.  8-16 397 

viii.  9,  sq 397 

ix.  1 325,326 

ix.  3 298 

ix.  4 423,500 

ix.  5 388 

ix.  7,  sq 397,423,473 

ix.  15 196,  388 

X.  4 397 

xi.  1 181,  456 

xi.  8 506 

xi.  8,  9 115 

xi.  9 109,  111,113 

xi.  10,  sq 507 

xii.  1 88,514 


Vii.  27 520,529 

viii.  9 83 

viii.  11 285 

viii.  15-17 446,528 

viii.  15 477 

viii.  16 446 

viii.  18 479 

viii.  26 434 

viU.27 475 

ix 488 

ix.  4,  sq 454,457,479 

ix.  18 457,459 

ix.21 286,446 

ix.24 535 

ix.25 522 

X , 446 

X.  1 466 

X.4 475 

X.  5 314,446,528 


xii.  9 160,  161 

xii.  10,  sq 364 

xii.  12 388 

xii.  13 514 

xii.  14 79 

xiii.  5 177 

xiii.  14 512 

xiv.  2 287,460 

JOEL. 

i.  14 352 

1.  15 91,  499 

ii.  1 ..499 

ii.  12,  sq 293,  492 

ii.  18 115 

ii.  28,  sq  4r>8,  508 

iii.  1...  365,  428,  490,  496, 

.501 

m.  3,  4 404,500 


JOEL.  PAGES 

iii.  3,  6 244,404 

iii.  14 501 

iii.  15 440 

iii.  16 407,502,504 

iii.  17,  18 510 

iii.  19 497 

iii.  20 509 

AHOS. 

i.  sq 396,476,496 

i.l 476 

i.2 407 

i.  3,  sq 395,397 

i.  6 404 

i.9 497 

i.  11 404 

ii.  6 241 

ii.  11,  sq 296,364 

iii.2 177,500 

iii.  6,  7  17,  18,  303, 

466,  476,  482 

iii.  8 466,  467 

iii.  14 256 

iv.  4,  5 298,  388,389 

iv.  6-11 500 

iv.  12 485 

V.  5 388,396,405 

V.  8 440,501 

V.IO 395 

V.  14,  18 396,  500 

v.21,  sq 388,452 

V.  22 288 

V.  26 68,  69 

vi.  1-6 395 

vi.  8 102 

vi.  14 396,496 

vii 476,477 

vii.  1,2,  sq 478,492, 

500,  533 

vii.  1-6 507 

vii.  8 493 

vii.  12 :..393 

vii.  13 387 

vu.  14 464 

vii.  15 393,  466 

viii.  5 335 

viii.  5-10 388 

viii.6 241 

viii.  12 363,  406 

viii.  14 396,405 

ix.  1 380 

ix.  5 437 

ix.  7 496,  499 

ix.  8 397,  500,  508 

ix.  9 507 

ix.  11 500,  516,   526 

IX.  12,13 127,510 

ix.  15 509 

OBADIAH. 

verse  3 59 

"      10-14....: 431 

"      15,  sq 501 

"      17,  sq  509 

"       20 244 

"      21 517 


MICAH.  PAGES 

iv.  1-3 518 

iv.  1-4  407,  517 

iv.  4  378 

iv.5 126 

iv.  9,  sq 526 

iv.  10 500 

iv.  11 428 

iv.  13 501,504 

V.  1 85,  226 

V.  2,  sq 526,530 

V.  3 137,526 

V.  3-10 490 

V.  4 529 

V.  4-10 510 

V.  6,  sq 507,530 

vi 456 

vi.  6 408,452,454 

vi.  7 268,30.3,308 

vi.  16  408 

vii.  3 289 

vii.  4 366 

vii.  9 456 

vii.  14 83,510 

vii.  16 518 

vii.  17 321 

vii.  18,  sq 462,  506 

vii.  19 378,  458 

HABAKKTJK. 

i 465,479,499,557 

i.  1 476 

i.  6,  sq 496,499 

i.  11 55,460,499 

i.  12, 13 Ill 

i.  16 499 

ii 465,  502 

ii.  1 476,479 

ii.2 407,513 

ii.  3 460,488 

ii.4 460,  507 

ii.5 170 

ii.  6 641 

ii.  1.3,  sq 482 

ii.  14 502 

ii.  20 443 

iii -.  465 

iii.  11 440 

iii.  19 474 

ZEPHANIAH. 


JONAH. 

iii.  3-10... 
iv.  3,  11... 


492 

. .  113,  150 


MICAH. 

i.  2,  sq 442,501 

i   13 405,408 

ii.  2  189,  344 

ii.  11 408,467 

ii.  13 507 

Iii 408 

iii.  5,  8,  sq 108,467 

iii.  7 479 

iv.  1 480 


i.  5 

i  7  

i.  15,  sq. 

ii.  3 

iii.  4... 


.500 
,410 
.499 
.503 
499 
.413 


iii.9 137,516 

iii.  10 518 

iii.  12 507 

HAGGAI. 

i   427 

ii.3 427,428 

ii.5 141,427 

ii.  6-21 427 

ii.  7,  sq 427,  517 

ii.  11,  sq 309,435 

ii.31 502 

ii.  33 426 

ZECHARIAH. 

i 474 

i.-vi 478 

i.  8,  sq ..445 

i.l2 -131,446,450 


i.  14... 

ii 

ii.  1-4. 
ii.9  .. 
ii.  11.. 
ii.  13.. 


115 
493 
437 
521 
493 
443 


TEXTUAL   INDEX. 


593 


ZECHARIAH.    pages 

ii.  17 441 

iii 445,449,534 

iii.  3 314,451 

iii.  7 44a 

iii.  9 317 

iv.  1 478,480 

iv.  1-6 427 

iv.  4 477 

iv.  7-9 437 

iv.  10 441 

V.  1^11 427 

vi.  9-15      535 

vi.  12 527 

vi.  13 216,535 

vi.  15 493,  494 

vii.  3 428 

vii.  3-5 428 

vii.  12 466,467 

vii.  14 422 

viii.  2 115 


ZECHARIAH.    i-.^ges 

viii.  10,  sq 378 

viii.  19 423 

viii.  20-23 427 

ix.  6 517 

ix.  7 516 

ix.  9,  sq .530 

ix.  10 510 

ix.  11 264,530 

X.  2 478 

X.  12 136 

xi.4-14 535 

xi.8 396 

xi.  10 176 

xii.-xiv 503,504 

xii.  1 119 

xii.  8 528 

xii.  10,  eq...  460,  528,  535 

xii.  11 413 

xiii.l 458 


ZECHARIAH.    pages 

xiii.  2 4m 

xiii.  4 392 

xiii.  7 528,  535 

xiv .503 

xiv.  5 103,  105,442 

xiv.  9 127.  517 

xiv.  16 516,  517 

xiv.  16-19 519 

xiv.  18 351 

xiv.  20,  sq 510,511 

MALACHI. 

i.  2 497 

i.4 497 

i.  6 432,434,4.53 

i.  7 272 

i.  11 127,519 

i.  13 269 


MALACHI,  PAGES 

ii.  4 205 

ii.  5,  sq 213 

ii.  7  435,  528 

ii.  9 434,453 

ii.  10-10 231 

ii.  14 227,534 

ii.  17 432,528 

iii.  1,  sq 432,528 

iii.  2 528 

iii.  2,  18  503 

iii.  3,  sq 453 

iii.  5 528 

iii.  6 95,  96,  505 

iii.  7  482 

iii.  7-12 453 

iii.  13,  sq 432 

iii.  19 282 

iii.  19-23 432 

iv.  1-5 432 

iv.  5 499,628,529 


KEW    TESTAMEIVT. 


MATTHEW.      PAGES 

iii.  4 392 

iii.  17 129 

V.21 189 

xi.  8 392 

xi.  11 433,  463 

xi.  13 10,11 

XV.  5 294 

xvii.  3  80 

xvii.  5 129 

xix.  6 ...  148 

xix.  7 231 

xix.  8 199 

xix.  18,  19 188,  190 

xxi.  43 494 

xxii.  24,  25 235 

xxii.  30  147 

xxii.  32 173 

xxiv.  14 504 

xxiv.  29 489 

xxvi.  63 249 

MARK. 

vii.  11 262,294 

ix.49 271,282 

X.  19 186,189 

LUKE. 

i.  15 294,297 

i.  59 194 

ii.21 194 

iv.  21 343 

ix.30 80 

ix.  32 480 

ix.  55 559 

xvi.  29 173 

XX.  28 235 

XX.  36 147 

xxiv.  44 10 

JOHN. 

i.l4 138 

i.  17 19 

i.l8 15 

iii.  1 141 

iii.  14 78 

iii.  27 480 

iii.  30 433 

iv.  12 399 

\i.  45  363,  508 

vii.  37 352 

viii.  12 352 

viii.  44 159 


JOHN.  PAGES 

viii.  58 96 

si.  51   467,  479 

xii.  28 129 

xiv.  23 138 

xvii.  2 508 

ACTS. 

i.7  488 

iii.  1 286 

iii.  24  362 

vii.  5 61 

vii.  23,23 70 

vii.  25 71 

viii.  37 154 

xii.  17 132 

xvii.  26 57 

xxvi.  7 202 

xxvii.  9 310 

ROMANS. 

ii.  7, 10 454 

ii.25 499 

iii.  2 431 

iii.  10 430 

iii.  25  28 

iv.  18 61 

vii.  7 189,455 

viii 463 

viii.  21  342 

ix.3  74 

ix.  8 61 

X.4  19 

X.  9 .' 154 

xi.  5 433 

xi.  25-36  198,  494 

xiii.  9 186 

xvi  20 159 

xvi.  25 19 

1  CORINTHIANS. 

i.  18-30 19 

V.  7 348 

vii.  10 473 

viii.  4 105 

x.1,3 75 

x.4 i:?4 

X.  17 a49 

X.  19 105 

xi.  3-16 297 

1  xi.  8 147 

xiii.  9 491 

I  xiii.  12 143,144 


1  CORINTHIANS. 

PAGES 

xiv.  24 367 

xiv.  32 469 

XV.  28 15 

XV.  55 513 

2  CORINTHIANS. 

i,  20  491 

iu.  3 508 

V.21 308 

vii.  3 217 

xu.  2-4 479 

GALATIANS. 

iii 61 

iii.  24 19 

iv.2 26 

iv.  9 19 

EFHESIANS. 

i.9 19 

ii.  12 18,19,483 

ii.  15.' 6 

vi.2 190 

COLOSSIANS. 

ii.  14...   6 

ii.  17 19 

PHILIPPIANS. 

i.7 217 

1  TIMOTHY. 

ii.  13  147 

HEBREWS. 

i.  1 491 

iii.  7 75 

iv.  9 332,343 

vi.l7 171 

vii 61 

viii.  5 254 

viii.  13 569 

ix.  6 317 

ix.  7 314,  315 

ix.  8 255,  2.56 

ix.  14 280 

ix.  15 38 

ix.  19 280 

x.  1 19 

xi 460 

xi.  4,  7 54,55 


HEBREWS.        PASBs 

xi.  8-19 61 

xi.  37 392 

xi.  40 80,  463,  565 

xii.  18 75 

JAMES. 

ii.  23 61 

V.  4 439 

1  JOHN. 

ii.20,  27 508 

iii.  12,  15 159 

1  PETER. 

i.  10 19,42,483 

i  11 489 

ii.  9     179 

iii.  20 55 

iv.  17 500 

2  PETER. 

i.20 42 

ii.  4 448 

JTJDE. 

verse  6 448 

verse  9 447 

REVELATION. 

i 257 

i  1 488 

i.4 93 

i.  6 179 

i.  13 530 

i.  13-15 446 

i.l7 474 

iv.  6 259 

iv.  8 93,260,444 

v.  8 256 

vii. 4 202 

vii.  15 138 

viii.  3   256 

X.  9     475 

xi.  17 93 

xii.  7 447 

xii.9 159 

xii.  10 450 

xvi.  5  93 

xix.  14 442 

XX.  8 502 

xxi.  1,3 15,493 

xxii.  6-12 132 


'I-  '7  - 


DATE  DUE 


!>0!^'- 


■h 




-■ — — 

^^^^_  ^ 

PRINTED  IN  U.S. A 

,  >   \^ 


^?f 


}" . 


t  A 


:0^ 


A. 


.r 


^ 


